ORDER : Mr. Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. 1. The accused-appellants have filed this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.04.1992 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Kota in Sessions Case No.151/1991 whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocitites) Act, 1989 and has sentenced each of the accused/appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default thereof to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one and half months. 2. It is to be noted that appellants have been acquitted for offence under Sections 147 and 451 I.P.C. It is further to be noted that two co-accused Shri Rajendra Singh and Shri Vijendra Singh were acquitted for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act also. 3. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that FIR No.174/1990 came to be registered at Police Station, Itawa on 25.07.1990 on the basis of a written report (Exhibit P-1) submitted by complainant Shri Prabhulal Meena alleging therein that accused-appellant Shri Mohan Singh initially abused him by his caste name and later on all the accused entered into his house armed with Dharias, Gandasi and Sticks and inflicted injuries to them. On the basis of FIR, investigation was undertaken and after usual investigation charge-sheet was filed against as many as six persons including the present appellants. In order to prove the charges, prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence whereas appellants in their respective statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution and in defence statements of three witnesses were recorded. Learned trial Court after hearing the respective parties and considering the evidence made available on record passed the impugned judgment and order. 4. Learned trial Court after hearing the respective parties and considering the evidence made available on record passed the impugned judgment and order. 4. Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that it is well-settled legal position that in a complaint/FIR filed for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, it is necessary for the complainant to mention in the complaint/FIR itself that the accused is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and the complainant was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate him in a place within public view and if such allegations are not made the complaint/FIR is liable to be quashed. Inviting attention of the Court towards written report (Exhibit P-1), it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the present case, no allegation was made by the complainant Shri Prabhulal Meena in the report that appellant-accused Shri Mohan Singh does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe and also no allegation was made in it to the effect that the accused intentionally insulted or intimidated him with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. According to learned counsel for the appellants, when in absence of the aforesaid allegations complaint/FIR is liable to be quashed at a initial stage, in the present case the appellants are entitled to be acquitted in absence of the required allegations. It was further submitted that as per the FIR (Exhibit P-1) and also statement of complainant Shri Prabhulal Meena recorded during the course of trial initially appellant Shri Mohan Singh abused him in front of his house when accused was going on his motorcycle and as per the evidence available on record, no other person except appellant and complainant were present at the place of incident and, therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant was abused by his caste name by appellant in public view. It was also submitted that the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. 5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 531 . 6. It was also submitted that the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. 5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P. & Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 531 . 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor controverting the submissions made on behalf of the appellants submitted that learned trial Court after appreciating and evaluating the evidence made available on record has held the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offence requiring no interference by this Court. 7. On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available on record as well as the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution during the course of trial and more particularly in view of the principle of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case, I find it a fit case in which the appeal filed on behalf of the appellants is liable to be allowed. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that as per the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and the complainant was intentionally insulted or intimidated by accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. It was found by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that case that in the entire complaint nowhere it is mentioned that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate the complainant in a place within public view. It was further held by Hon’ble Court that when the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the accused to face the consequence of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law. It is to be noted that with this finding Hon’ble Supreme Court in that case quashed the complaint. In the present case, in the FIR it is only alleged by the complainant Shri Prabhulal Meena that appellant-accused Shri Mohan Singh abused him with his caste name. No other ingredients required to constitute the aforesaid offence were mentioned in the report. It is to be noted that with this finding Hon’ble Supreme Court in that case quashed the complaint. In the present case, in the FIR it is only alleged by the complainant Shri Prabhulal Meena that appellant-accused Shri Mohan Singh abused him with his caste name. No other ingredients required to constitute the aforesaid offence were mentioned in the report. Apart from that as per evidence available on record, at the most, it can be said that at the time of alleged incident only appellant Shri Mohan Singh and complainant were present and, therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant was abused in a public view. I agree with the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that when Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the complaint at initial stage in absence of the requisite ingredients, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted for the same reasons. 8. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 20.04.1992 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Kota is set aside and the appellants are acquitted for the offence for which they have been held guilty by the trial Court. Presently, the appellants are on bail, the bail-bonds submitted by them are discharged. The appellants are not required to appear before this Court.