JUDGMENT S.K. Sahooj, J. - Heard Mr. Ananta Pr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Arupananda Das, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. 2. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the petitioners Bratati Priyadarshinee Sahoo @ Dipti Sahu and Surendra Kumar Patro with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 27.09.2016 passed by the learned Nyayadhikari, Gramya Nyayalaya, Kolnara at Rayagada in G.R. Case No.106 of 2015 in taking cognizance of offence under section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended by Act I of 2016 (hereafter 'amended SC & ST (POA) Act'). 3. The first information report was lodged on 08.12.2015 by the opp. party no.2 Krushna Chandra Kankania before the Inspector in charge of Chandili police station and accordingly, Chandili P.S. Case No.164 of 2015 was registered under section 3(1)(x) of the SC & St (POA) Act, 1989 (hereafter 'Old SC & ST (POA) Act'). In the first information report, the date of occurrence is stated to be 07.09.2015. The matter was investigated by the S.D.P.O., Rayagada who submitted charge sheet against the petitioners on 24.09.2016 under section 3(1)(s) of the amended SC & ST (POA) Act and basing on such charge sheet, the learned Magistrate has passed the impugned order. 4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that submission of charge sheet under section 3(1)(s) of the amended SC & ST (POA) Act is palpably illegal and unjustified so also taking cognizance of such offence inasmuch as when the offence was committed on 07.09.2015, section 3(1)(s) was not in existence and the amended Act came into force only on 26.01.2016. It is further contended that in the first information report, there is no specific material relating to the type of abuse used by the petitioners to the informant and it is also not mentioned that the informant is a member of scheduled caste and the petitioners are neither the members of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and therefore, the ingredients of offence under section 3(1)(s) of the amended SC & ST (POA) Act or section 3(1)(x) of the old SC & ST (POA) Act are not attracted. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there is no material on record to show that the petitioners were aware about the caste of the informant and therefore, it cannot be said that they intentionally insulted or intimidated the informant with intent to humiliate him in any place within public view. It is further submitted that in the first information report, it is mentioned that relating to the incident dated 07.09.2015 regarding the insult of the informant in the name of the caste, one report was lodged in Therubali outpost but that report is not forthcoming, therefore, this Court should exercise its inherent power under section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 to quash the criminal proceeding against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of A.P. reported in (2008) 12 SCC 531 wherein it is held as follows:- "6. In the instant case, the allegation of respondent No.3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.5.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent No. 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent No. 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law." 6. After going through the cited decision and the factual scenario of the present case, I am of the humble view that the ratio laid down in the cited case is not applicable to this case because even though specific details relating to the commission of offence under SC & ST (POA) Act are not there in the F.I.R. but during investigation, such specific details are borne out from the statement of the informant. Needless to say, the F.I.R. is not the encyclopedia and be all and end all of the prosecution case and all the details of the occurrence need not be mentioned in it. 7. Learned counsel for the State submitted that it appears from the F.I.R. that on 07.09.2015 after the incident took place, the informant reported the matter at Therubali outpost which was not acted upon for which the informant lodged another F.I.R., on the basis of which Chandili P.S. Case No.164 of 2015 was registered. It is further submitted that in the statement recorded during investigation, the informant has categorically stated that the petitioners abused him in the name of his caste as "Dama" and therefore, prima facie ingredients of the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the old SC & ST (POA) Act is clearly made out. He fairly submits that the submission of charge sheet under section 3 (1)(s) of the amended SC & ST (POA) Act was inadvertently done and the materials available on record clearly makes out a case under section 3(1)(x) of the Old SC & ST (POA) Act. He placed the statement of the informant Krushna Chandra Kankania. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on going through the materials available on record, it appears that the date of occurrence is 07.09.2015 which is mentioned in the formal F.I.R. of Chandili P.S. Case No.164 of 2015. It is also not in dispute that as on that date, the amended Act has not come into force which came into force on 26.01.2016. Section 3(1)(s) of the amended Act under which the charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance of the offence was taken prescribes punishment for a person who is not a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe if he abuses any member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe by caste name in any place within public view. 9. Since section 3(1)(s) of the amended Act was not in force as on the date of occurrence, therefore, I am in agreement with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the submission of charge sheet under such offence was not proper and justified so also the impugned order of taking cognizance of such offence. 10. 9. Since section 3(1)(s) of the amended Act was not in force as on the date of occurrence, therefore, I am in agreement with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the submission of charge sheet under such offence was not proper and justified so also the impugned order of taking cognizance of such offence. 10. However, on going through the statement of the informant, it appears that there is prima facie material to show that the petitioners by uttering the words "Tume Dama Loka Tumaku Biswas Kana" in the public office has intentionally insulted the informant with intent to humiliate him. At this stage, the Court is concerned with prima facie case and since on the basis of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the informant as well as other materials available on record, the ingredients of the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the old SC & ST (POA) Act is made out, I am of the humble view that the cognizance of offence should be taken under such offence. 11. Accordingly, while setting aside the order of taking cognizance under section 3(1)(s) of the amended SC & ST (POA) Act, I direct the learned Nyayadhikari, Gramya Nyayalaya, Kolnara at Rayagada to take cognizance of offence under section 3(1)(x) of the old SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and proceed with the case in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, the CRLMC application is disposed of.