.....civil procedure, 1903 order xlv, rule s (b)-judicial committee's rules, rule 43.;the accidental omission to notify respondents of the admission of an appeal to the privy council is not a sufficient ground for rehearing, provided such respondents in fact knew of the admission. - section 3: [s.b. mhase, d.s. bhosale & a.s. oka, jj] offences of atrocities - complaint under held, merely because the caste of the accused is not mentioned in the fir stating whether he belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, it cannot be a ground for quashing the complaint. after ascertaining the facts during he course of investigation it is always open to the investigating officer to record tht the accused either belongs to or does not belongs to schedule caste or scheduled tribe. after final opinion is formed, it is open to the court to either accept the same or take cognizance. even if the charge sheet is filed at the time of consideration of the charge, it si open to the accused to bring to the notice of the court that the materials do not show that the accused does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. even if charge is framed at the time of trial materials can be placed to show that the accused either belongs to or does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. even if charge is frame d at the time of trial materials can be placed to show that the accused either belongs to or does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. it is not a requirement und4r section 3 of the atrocities act that the complainant should disclose the caste of the accused in the complaint. in other words, if there is no mention of the caste of the accused in the fir, that cannot be a ground for either not registering the offence under section 3 of the act or for quashing such complaint - further, they all bad notice of an application made by appellants for stay of execution pending the appeal to the board, there was sufficient evidence to show that they all knew of the.....1. the chief court admitted the appeal on february 13, 1915, but did not notify the respondents other than gurmukh singh of the admission. such notification was required by order xlv, rule 8 (b). the registrar of the pan jab chief court has certified that the respondents other than gurmukh singh were not served with notice, and that this was duo to oversight in his office. gurmukh singh has sworn that lie did not inform the other respondents of the admission of the appeal, and all the other respondents have filed affidavits that they did not know of the admission, or of the despatch of the printed record to england. had they known, they would have instructed agents to defend the appeal. under these circumstances they are entitled to a rehearing : mussumat ranee sumo moyee. v. shooshee mokhee burmonia reference was made to rule. 43 of the rules of the judicial committee, 1908.2. dabe, for the opposite party appellants, submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case showed that all the respondents knew of the admission of the appeal. they all had knows ledge of the application under order xivv, rule 3, and of the chief court's order dated october 14th 1914 certifying that the case-fulfilled the requirements of section 110 of the code of civil procedure. further, they all bad notice of an application made by appellants for stay of execution pending the appeal to the board, there was sufficient evidence to show that they all knew of the despatch of the record to england. under rule 43 of the-board's rules it is not necessary that they should get notice of the admission of the appeal if they were, in fact, aware of it : it is clear that they were so aware.3. their lordships rejected the application with costs.