JUDGMENT : Rule. Rule heard forthwith, with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties. 2. This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in respect of Crime No.3012/2015 for offence punishable under section 294, 507 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1)(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at Police Station: Dighori, Dist. Bhandara. 3. Perused the F.I.R. dated 11.9.2015 lodged by complainant-Dr. Savita Bhaurao Maldongre, caste “Gond” Scheduled Tribe. The course of the alleged incriminating material in the FIR, is roughly translated as under : “ On the second day, dated 10.09.2015, in the morning at about 8.45, I had been on my duty, at Primary Health Centre, Barvha. At about 4.30 p.m., Smt. Sonwane, Health Assistant (Arogya Sevika), Barvha, had played the recording of the abuses given by Dr. Kapgate, the present applicant through Mobile Phone No 9764476745, which was given on 9.9.2015 at about 7.54 p.m. In the recording played, I heard thus: “Where she ran away? the rascal Gondin might have ran away to somebody’s house? No sooner, I heard the vulgar expletives, I asked Dr. Kapgate, the applicant, about it and he told me that the first part to give the tablets to the patients was his; whereas the second part about the abuses in the name of caste, was not of his conversation.” 4. On the basis of the above allegations, the complainant lodged the F.I.R. and the police registered the offence punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 and Sections 294, 507 of the IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the FIR, prima facie, does not constitute an offence under sec. 3 (1) (x) of the Act, of 1989, on the basis of the above statements in the FIR. He relied on the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Potluri Poorna Chandra Prabhakar Rao vs. State of UP (2002) CCR 59, in which it was held that a telephonic conversation would not amount to offence punishable u/s 3 (1)(x) of the Act of 1989. He relied on the some other judgments which, in my opinion, are not directly on the point. 6. He relied on the some other judgments which, in my opinion, are not directly on the point. 6. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. opposed the Application and prayed for dismissal of the same, on the ground that investigation being underway, there is no need to grant anticipatory bail. 7. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties. Considered the submissions advanced. Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act of 1989 reads thus: “ 3(1) (x) : Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe - (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;” (emphasis supplied). 8. From the above facts it is clear that the applicant is alleged to have given abuses on the mobile phone of Smt. Sonawane, Health Assistant, who is said to have recorded the same in her mobile. On the next day, at 4.30p.m. Smt. Sonawane played the recording for hearing by the complainant. Perusal of the above proviso shows that hearing of the voice/abuses in a recorded mobile phone from the Arogya Sevika, allegedly given by Dr. Kapgate, the applicant, would not fall in the ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) and would not fall within “within public view”. At any rate, the insult or intimidation seems to have not been hurled directly to the complainant; but is said to have been recorded by the Arogya Sevika in her mobile phone. Thus, the above provision being penal provision, its interpretation admits of no dilution and has to be strictly interpreted. It is not possible for this court to put something in the provision which is not there. In the result, I find that prima facie, no offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 is disclosed. Hence, the following order: ORDER i) Criminal Application No.524/2015 is allowed. ii) Rule is made absolute in terms of the ad-interim order dated 12th October, 2015 made by this Court.