Bangalore District Court
Halsoor Gate P.S vs Ramesh on 19 March, 2024
KABC010139992017
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-71)
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2024.
Present;
Sri. Rajesh Karnam.K, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.,
LXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.Case.No.255/2017
COMPLAINANT STATE
: Represented by
Halasuru Gate Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep.by Special Public Prosecutor).
-V/s-
ACCUSED : Ramesh,
S/o.Ankaiah.R.,
Aged about 66 years,,
R/at No.1, 7th Main road,
Vasanthanagar,
Bengaluru-560 052.
(Rep.by Sri. BM., Advocate)
1. Date of commission of : 06.06.1987
offence
2. Date of report of Offence 02.09.2014
3. Name of the Complainant : Sri. Veerabhadraiah
2 Spl.C.255/2017
4. Date of commencement of : 15.02.2018
recording of evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence : 06.06.2023
6. Offences Complained are : U/s.420 of IPC &
Sec.3(1) (ix) of
SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused found guilty for
the offence punishable
u/s.420 of IPC
JU DG MEN T
This case is registered on the basis of
charge sheet submitted by DCP, DCRE,
Bengaluru against the accused for the offences
punishable under Section 420 of IPC & Sec.3(1)
(ix) of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989.
2. The case of the prosecution is that accused
though not belonging to 'Adi Dravida' reprsented
himself belonging to Adi Dravida caste, originally
accused hails from 'Pillai Mudaliar', he on the
basis of the false caste certificate, obtained
employment as Police Constable, the DCRE has
conducted enquiry and found accused has
violated the same and obtained false caste
3 Spl.C.255/2017
certificate, as such the caste certificate issued in
favour of the accused is cancelled. Accordingly
the Tahasildar, Bengaluru North, had effected
the cancellation of the caste certificate issued by
the Tahasildar in favour of the accused and
accused having deceived the State by making
false representation based on the false caste
certificate alleged about committing crime as on
6.6.1987 false information given and obtained
caste certificate on 23.4.1992, accordingly the
complaint had made before the jurisdictional
police for the offence punishable u/s.466, 177,
181, 199, 120B, 201, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468,
471, 472 of IPC. Investigating Officer finally filed
charge sheet for the offence punishable u/s.420
of IPC & Sec.3(1) (ix) of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989.
3. On service of the summons, the accused
has appeared before this Court and he got
enlarged on bail. The charge sheet copies were
furnished to the accused as contemplated under
4 Spl.C.255/2017
Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before the charge.
As there was sufficient materials available, my
learned predecessor in office framed charge for
the offences punishable u/s.420 of IPC and
sec.3(1)(ix) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, read over
and explained to the accused in vernacular
language and she pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried. On the prayer of the learned SPP
charge has been altered.
4. At trial, the prosecution got examined PWs-
1 to 16 and got exhibited Exs.P.1 to 30 and
closed its side. In response accused entered
witness box and got examined as D.W.1 and got
exhibited Exs.D.1 to 7. The statement of the
accused u/sec 313 recorded, read over and
explained to the accused in vernacular language
and the accused, denied all the incriminating
evidence and he did not choose to lead defence
evidence on his behalf.
5 Spl.C.255/2017
5. Heard the arguments and perused the
materials available on record.
6. The following points would arise for the
determination of this Court are as follows;
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that in the year 1993 within
the limits of Halasuru Gate police station,
Bengaluru, accused belonging to Mudaliar Pillai
caste got fabricated schedule caste certificate
from Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, shown
as belonging to 'Adi Dravida' same is presented
for obtaining appointment in the place of SC/ST
candidates as Police Constable and thereby
committed offence punishable u/s 420 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date,
time and place accused obtained caste certificate
as 'Adi Dravida' though he is not belonging to
'Adi Dravida', originally belonging to 'Mudaliar
Pillai" OBC but not SC/ST and got concocted
caste certificate being issued by Tahsildar North
Taluk, and obtained appointment as Police
Constable, and thereby caused annoyance and
as such has committed the offence punishable
u/s.3(1)(ix) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989?
3. What Order?
7. My findings to the above points are as follows;
6 Spl.C.255/2017
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: In the Negative;
Point No.3: As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
8. POINT No.1 : In the case on hand as per
the complaint got registered by the DCRE, the
Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, did passed
orders on 24.6.2014 by setting aside the caste
certificate obtained by the accused as Adi
Dravida. The same has been given effect by
the jurisdictional Tahasildar on 9.7.2014. In
that regard, the member of the Caste
Verification Committee, Ramanagar had made
report to the Superintendent of Police, DCRE
to take appropriate action on 21.6.2014.
Immediately crime came to be registered on
the basis of the crime on conclusion of
investigation charge sheet is filed as the
accused did defrauded in obtaining the caste
7 Spl.C.255/2017
certificate he has been charge sheeted for the
offence punishable u/s.420 of IPC.
9. In the case on hand, it has been alleged
that as the accused obtained caste certificate,
though not belonging to schedule caste or schedule
tribe, as per the schedule of the Constitution that
too in Karnataka as originally his ancestors hail
from Tamil Nadu. The accused is alleged to have
committed offence punishable u/s.3(1)(ix) of SC/ST
(POA) Act before amendment in the year 2017-
2018. In proof of the complaint, the prosecution
has examined the complainant as C.W.1/P.W.1. As
other witnesses namely P.W.2 is PSI, DCRE who
made further investigation on registering crime as
per Ex.P.8.
10. The P.W.3 is the Principal of the
Government Boys PU College, Channapatna, who
has handed over Admission Register Extract and
other documents pertaining to the admission of the
accused. The P.W.4 K.T.Krishnaswamy is the retired
8 Spl.C.255/2017
Tahasildar who had passed order communicating
about cancellation of the caste certificate obtained
by the accused.
11. The P.W.5 Vijayalakshmi is the Teacher who
had given the admission and other particulars of
the sister of the accused as per the request of the
Superintendent of Police, DCRE.
12. The P.W.6 Arun Prabha is the Project Director,
District Urban, Development Cell, Udupi, who was
the then Tahasildar of Channapatna.
13. The P.W.7 R.T.Shivarudrappa is the retired
Deputy Commissioner who had conducted part of
the investigation. The P.W.8 Kaliyappa is another
retired Headmaster who had provided documents of
the school records of the accused, the PW.9
S.T.Thimmegowda is another Principal of the
College where accused studied. The P.W.10
K.Vishwanatha is the Police Inspector who
conducted spot inspection and arrested the accused
and produced before the court. The P.W.11 Irshad
9 Spl.C.255/2017
Ahmed Khan is the Investigating Officer who filed
charge sheet. The P.W.12 Gangaiah is the
Investigating Officer who conducted part of the
investigation. The P.W.13 M.Shivashankar is the
ACP who conducted part of the investigation, who
collected service register of the accused has given
evidence to that effect.
14. The P.W.14 Sister Sagai Mary is the retired
Administrative worked at Channapatna St.Joseph
Higher Primary School deposed about producing
the documents pertaining to the accused school
register extract alongwith sister of the accused.
15. The P.W.15 M.Nagaraju is the retired AEE
who provided service register of the accused.
16. The P.W16 Dr.D.S.Vishwanatha is the IAS
Officer who is the Chairman of the Caste
Verification Committee. On hearing both side, case
is reserved for judgment.
17. The learned counsel for the accused argues
the charge made is accused has obtained false
10 Spl.C.255/2017
caste certificate and got Government job in police
department. The documents as per Ex.P.1 to 7
clearly establishes the fact that accused had
misrepresented while obtaining job. There is
corroboration in the evidence of P.W.3
B.P.Parvathamma Head Mistress who has placed
Ex.P.9 the contents clearly discloses that accused
admission register extract discloses he is having
registration No.33412 at Sl.No.96 of the Admission
Register Extract who is born on 08.02.1958 being
son of Ankappa.R working as driver having monthly
income of Rs.1,620, belonging to Indian Hindu
Mudaliar, mother tongue Tamil, father is working
as a driver in PWD, Channapatna St.Joseph School,
Channapatna, as such Ex.P.9 accused Admission
Register Extract discloses he is Mudaliar. Further
as per Ex.P.13 the sister of the accused is similarly
as per the admission register extract at Sl.No.14 is
shown as A.Geetha, D/o.R.Ankaiah, driver, Pillai,
Hindu. Therefore the mention of 'Adi Dravida' in the
11 Spl.C.255/2017
caste of the accused is a false certificate obtained
by the accused is established. In the evidence of
P.W.4 Krishnaswamy has specifically deposed about
obtaining caste certificate by the accused as on
6.6.1987 as Adi Dravida is based on false
information. In fact the P.W.6 Aruna Prabhu has
specifically deposed did working as a Head Master
who has produced Exs.P.13, 14 and 15. The
documents establishes there is discrepancy in the
caste certificate obtained by the accused while
getting employment the date from the actual caste
mentioned in these documents. Therefore accused
has manipulated for his benefit by disclosing false
information to the jurisdictional Tahasildar.
Therefore the complaint made and enquiry
conducted by the concerned and even the evidence
of P.W.8 Kaliyappa another retired Head Master
who has provided information to the Investigating
Officer on the request as per Ex.P.17 goes against
the case of prosecution.
12 Spl.C.255/2017
18. The evidence of P.W.9 T.S.Timmegowda
wherein discloses the daughter of the accused has
also got caste certificate as Adi Dravida which is
based on the accused declaration as per Ex.P.19.
Therefore Exs.P.13 to 26 establishes the fraud
played by the accused and it is only with an
intention to get job. Therefore all the ingredients of
offence punishable u/s.420 of IPC are being
established.
19. The learned SPP argues as per the Exs.P.14
to 16, the service register and employment the
caste verification report is noted in Ex.P.16. In the
service register itself it discloses many
departmental enquiry are being conducted against
the accused for dereliction of duty, as such the
conduct of accused obtaining false certificate is not
unrespectable. It probabalise with the case of
prosecution that the conduct of the accused is not
apprehended. The PW.13 M.Shivashankar has
deposed about registering crime and obtaining
13 Spl.C.255/2017
documents Exs.P.23, 24 basically establishes the
guilt of the accused, as such as the enquiry has
been conducted as per provisions of SC/ST (POA)
Act 1989, as the caste certificate is obtained after
the commencement of the Act, accused is to be held
responsible even for the offence punishable u/s.3(i)
(ix) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Accordingly seeks
conviction of the accused.
20. The learned counsel for the accused
submits the date of order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner is dated:17.5.2014. Admittedly there
is no writ petition filed, the crime is registered on
2.9.2014 and as per the charge sheet only charge is
filed for the offence filed u/s.420 of IPC and sec.3(1)
(ix) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989. In fact the alleged
offences are punishable as per the provision of old
Act. In fact accused not committed any overt act.
The Deputy Commissioner has passed orders on
17.5.2014 as per Ex.P.5. The Pillai is different from
Mudaliar and the Enquiry Officer, the Deputy
14 Spl.C.255/2017
Commissioner has not at all placed the schedule of
the Constitution wherein in which place Mudaliar
or Pillai. In fact as per the genealogical tree, the
other children of Ankaiah the present caste
certificate is obtained in the year 1987. The
accused has entered witness box as D.W.1. He has
deposed that he studied SSLC in the year 1981 in
Basaveshwara Junior College, Rajajinagar. He has
produced SSLC Cumulative record as per Ex.D.1
which shows that he belongs to Adi Dravida caste.
He further deposed that his grandfather's name was
Kote Mari Muthu and their native place is Hosur,
Tamil Nadu, the house they are residing now is his
grandfather's house situated at Harijana Colony.
The house was alloted by BDA to his grandfather.
He further deposed that he was selected as Police
constable in the year 1992, but in the year 2013
they verified the caste certificate and removed him
from service. As they did not sell the house to their
tenant Chandrashekar, he has given false
15 Spl.C.255/2017
complaint that he has given false caste certificate.
He also given complaint when accused was working
in BESCOM from 2005 to 2008 that he has
produced wrong caste certificate. He also gave
complaint before SP, Channapatna police, there
also it was in his favour. His ancestors are also
belonging to Adi Dravida and they have produced
the documents which are marked as Ex.D.3 and 4.
In the cross-examination he admitted that the
documents of his ancestors caste produced by him
is very old. He denied that he does not belongs to
Adi Dravida schedule caste. The learned SPP
questioned he has been removed from service,
accused deposed that he has been removed and
later he was taken to job and the documents
produced is not forged caste certificate. In the
further examination-in-chief he deposed that his
ancestors genealogical tree of the year 2008 is
produced as per Ex.D.5. In the said genealogical
tree his father Ankaiah is the first and elder. He has
16 Spl.C.255/2017
produced documents of his father's father children
Raghunath which is marked as Ex.D.1, he has also
produced present caste certificate which is marked
as Ex.D.6. He has also produced caste certificate of
Sampammala's daughter, her daughter's caste
certificate which is marked Ex.D.7. In the cross-
examination accused admitted that he does not
belongs to Mudaliar Pillai caste but belongs to
schedule caste. He denied that he has not cheated
the Government by availing job.
21. The learned counsel for the accused argues
as per Exs.D.1 to 7 the caste certificate of brother
of accused clearly discloses the accused has placed
cumulative record which is marked as Ex.D.1 and
the caste certificate obtained as Ex.D.2 which were
dated:6.6.1981 and 24.6.1981 discloses when the
accused was minor these documents had come,
wherein it discloses accused is belonging to Adi
Dravida, the same has been placed before the
concerned authority who have issued caste
17 Spl.C.255/2017
certificate to the accused. Therefore even as per the
caste certificates the brother's son of accused, the
other Exs.D.2 to 7 established that even the
brothers of the accused had obtained the caste
certificate as Adi Dravida. The accused has not
committed any offence since the grandfather of the
accused. Therefore the defence documents date
back to 1981 i.e. the day the Act of SC/ST (POA)
Act 1989 was not in effect. Therefore the benefit of
doubt is to be given to the accused and accused is
to be acquitted. Even the cross-examination of
P.W.16 last 14 lines establishes. Therefore the
accused is not guilty of other offence punishable
u/s.420 of IPC or offence punishable u/s.3(1)(ix) of
SC/ST (POA) Act 1989. Accordingly accused is to be
acquitted.
22. The learned counsel for the accused
submits the family members of the accused namely
as per the family tree placed by the accused namely
Ex.D.5 the father's sister's children of accused
18 Spl.C.255/2017
namely the 4th daughter Sampamma's children and
other uncle and aunts children did obtained caste
certificates as schedule 'C' 'Adi Dravida' which are
subsequently placed as per Ex.D.6 and 7. These
documents clearly shows that even today the family
of the children and grand children of original
propositors of the family namely Koti Mari Muthu @
Ramaswamy who is father of Ankaiah i.e. father of
the present accused clearly establishes that the
entire family is having caste certificate as 'Adi
Dravida' and there is no manipulation played by the
accused herein. The answers given by the accused
to all the questions put by the prosecution clearly
establishes the defence and the allegations made by
the prosecution has not been substantiated and
material evidence placed on record is concerned
with regard to the document after the
commencement of the SC/ST (POA) Act 1989,
however accused as per the documents of
prosecution itself had caste certificate since from
19 Spl.C.255/2017
6.6.1987 which is even before the commencement
of the Act. Therefore the ingredients of offence
punishable u/s.3(1)(ix) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989
cannot be applied retrospectively. As such the
prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt to bring
home the guilt of the accused. Even as per citation
of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (1994)6 SCC
241 in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another
V/s. Addl. Commissioner Tribal Development and
others wherein it is held that:
"e. Constitution of India-
Arts.366(25) & 342, 341 and 226
and 136- Constitution (SC/ST)
Order, 1950-Social status
certificate- findings of Verification
Committee based on evidence-
Court's interference with-Not open
unless findings vitiated by error or
law or non-application of mind to
relevant facts or material-High
court under Art.226 not a court of
appeal to appreciate evidence.
Therefore accused is to be acquitted of the offence
punishable u/s.3(1)(ix) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989.
Similarly the question of playing fraud by the accused
20 Spl.C.255/2017
does not arise. Accordingly seeks acquittal of the
accused.
23. The learned SPP argues the contentions
raised by the accused even in the defence
evidence cannot be considered. In fact the fraud
played by the accused is evident from the record
itself. The learned SPP argues further that the
P.W.1 Veerabhadraiah the DYSP has directed to
make a report before the jurisdictional police as
per Ex.P.1 that accused had obtained 'Adi
Dravida' schedule caste community caste
certificate though he hails from Mudaliar Pillai
community which does not come under SC or ST.
The Ex.P.1 is the report made before the
jurisdictional police. The Ex.P.2 is the order
passed by the Tahasildar, Bengaluru North,
alongwith previous caste certificate. The report of
Social Welfare Department addressed to the
Superintendent of Police the proceedings
initiated by the Deputy Commissioner Caste
21 Spl.C.255/2017
Verification Committee, the letter of Tahasildar,
Channapatna marked as Ex.P.6 and order of the
Tahasildar Ex.P.7.
24. The learned SPP argues further the PSI C.W.2
had obtained Ex.P.1 report and registered crime which
is undisputed though denied in the cross-
examination. The P.W.3 is the Principal who has
issued attested copy of the Admission Register
Extract. Even in the cross-examination nothing has
been elicited so as to discard the trustworthiness of
this witness. This witness in cross-examination has
deposed in case there is discrepancy found in the
Transfer certificate they will definitely verify the
records and correct the same as per the record and
registered the same. However in this case they have
verified the same and issued as per Ex.P.9 and 10.
25. The P.W.4 is the Tahasildar who passed the order
cancelling the Adi Dravida caste report issued in
favour of the present accused. This witness has
handed over Exs.P.4, 11 and 2 to the jurisdictional
22 Spl.C.255/2017
police on request. In the cross-examination this
witness has denied the suggestion made by the
learned counsel for the accused. This witness has
denied behind the back of the accused he has passed
order as per Ex.P.11.
26. The P.W.5 Vijayalakshmi is the Head Mistress
has placed the admission register extracts of the sister
of the accused. The P.W.6 Aruna Prabhu is the
Authority, he deposed about issuing Exs.P.7 and 6
wherein it discloses caste of the accused is 'Pillai'. The
P.W.7 R.T.Shivarudrappa who deposes about
submitting the Service Register of the accused. This
witness deposes as per the request of DCRE they have
sent the copy of the S.R. which is got marked as
Exs.P.14 to 16. In the cross-examination this witness
deposes there was no any original caste certificate of
the accused but it was only xerox copy. This witness
admits caste of the accused is mentioned as Adi
Dravida is admitted. This witness admits on
22.3.2023 accused has joined the department. This
23 Spl.C.255/2017
witness admits there is Verification Committee which
will verify the documents furnished whether true or
correct. This witness admits all the particulars in the
service book which is entered. The suspension of the
employee and re-entry into service will also be
mentioned therein.
27. P.W.8 Kaliyappa retired Head Master
deposes about providing admission register extract
and also covering letter of one A.Ravi S/o.Ankaiah.
This witness deposes the caste of A.Ravi is mentioned
as 'Pillai' in Ex.P.18. P.W.9 is the retired Head Master
who deposes about preparing certified copy of the
particulars of student namely Deepika D/o.Ramesh,
accused daughter as per Ex.P.19 and 20.
28. P.W.10 K.Vishwanath who is the Police Inspector
who registered crime. The witness in his cross-
examination deposes he is deposing on going through
the record, he denies suggestions made by learned
counsel for the accused. This witness admits he has
not specified in his statement, he has not given any
24 Spl.C.255/2017
statement before Investigating Officer. P.W.11 deposes
about filing charge sheet against the accused. P.W.12
is the Investigating Officer who conducted
investigation by getting the accused before him and
obtained documents namely Ex.P.17 to 22 and
handed over investigation to the Investigating Officer
who have filed charge sheet. P.W.13 is the
Investigating Officer who obtained further
investigation and received Ex.P.23, 22, recorded
statements of C.Ws.7, 9 and 10 and filed charge sheet
against the accused. This witness denies suggestions
in the cross-examination and in page-4 of his cross-
examination admits any person from outside State
has to place original caste certificate, in this case
accused has placed caste certificate as 'Adi Dravida'.
This witness admits one Ankaiah was belonging to
'Pillai' caste is admitted. This witness deposes the
'Pillai' comes under SC/ST in Tamil Nadu pleads
ignorance. This witness admits that caste of the
brother and sister of the accused is mentioned as
25 Spl.C.255/2017
'Pillai'. This witness admits he has not shown any
difference between 'Pillai' and 'Adi Dravida' and he has
not disclosed the 'Pillai' comes to which category.
29. PW.14 is the Head Master of St.Joseph's Higher
Primary School, Channapatna, wherein this witness
deposes about production of admission register
extract of Geetha which is marked as Ex.P.25 to 28.
Accordingly in the cross-examination this witness
admits there is no caste by name 'Pillai' in Karnataka,
this witness pleads there may be caste of 'Pillai' in
Tamil Nadu. This witness deposes police have not
collected any documents in his presence. P.W.15 is the
retired AEE who deposes about receiving Ex.P.23 and
handing over Ex.P.24. In cross-examination this
witness admits on the request of the Investigating
Officer, he has given the documents. This witness
pleads ignorance about the caste and sub-caste of the
Ankaiah. P.W.16 is the Deputy Commissioner who is
the Chairman of the Caste Verification Committee who
26 Spl.C.255/2017
deposes about cancellation of the caste certificate
issued in favour of the accused as Adi Dravida.
30. On going through the material on record, as per
the complaint, it is specific case of the prosecution
that accused has obtained caste certificate as 'Adi
Dravida' though he was belonging to 'Mudaliar Pillai'.
The accused as per the complaint though his father is
shown as 'Mudaliar Pillai' even in his service register
accused misrepresented before the Tahasildar,
Bengaluru North on 6.6.1987 obtained caste
certificate as 'Adi Dravida' and he was selected for
employment on 23.4.1992 in Channapatna obtained
caste certificate as 'Adi Dravida' and appointed in the
year 1993 for the post of Police Constable.
31. In this regard the prosecution at the first
instance submits by relying on the evidence of
complainant and other material witness namely the
Head Master of the School where accused has studied
namely P.W.3 B.P.Parvathamma and another school
master namely P.W.5 Vijayalakshmi and P.W.8
27 Spl.C.255/2017
Kaliyappa and P.W.9 S.T.Thimmegowda are the school
authorities who have given documents with regard to
caste certificate of accused, accused brother, accused
sister and accused children. The learned SPP argues
as per the caste certificate of the A.Ravi brother of the
accused as per Ex.P.17 discloses his caste is as per
admission register extract 'Pillai'. Similarly the sister
of the accused when she was admitted to school her
caste certificate is mentioned as 'Pillai'. Even in the
evidence of P.W.5 Vijayalakshmi the Head Mistress
deposes A.Geetha sister of the accused had caste
certificate as per Ex.P.12 and 13 which is mentioned
as 'Pillai'.
32. In the case on hand, the caste certificate of the
accused is mentioned as 'Adi Dravida' as per his own
admission which is undisputed since accused even by
placing Ex.D.1 and 2 submits his caste certificate is
Adi Dravida. Even the Investigating Officer has
admitted that accused caste certificate is disclosed as
'Adi Dravida'.
28 Spl.C.255/2017
33. The P.W.6 Aruna Prabhu who is working in
Channapatna Taluk has deposed the caste of the
accused being 'Adi Dravida' issued is cancelled as per
the order of the Deputy Commissioner P.W.16. The
Caste Verification Committee has set aside the caste of
the accused as 'Adi Drivada'.
34. P.W.7 is the Administrative Officer working in
District Superintendent of Police at Ramanagar
District wherein this witness has deposed there is no
caste certificate in the office, but there is only xerox
copy available but he has produced all service register
extract. On going through the documents placed by
the prosecution established Ex.P.13 the Admisision
Register Extract discloses the sister of the accused is
admitted to school in the year 1971 as he is disclosing
her name is shown as Geetha daughter of R.Ankaiah
belonging to 'Pillai'. Similarly even in the admission of
the accused as per Ex.P.30 which reaffirms the caste
of the sister of the accused as 'Pillai'. The school
register extract of father of the accused as per Ex.P.29
29 Spl.C.255/2017
discloses he is 'Pillai' Hindu'. In fact Ex.P.28 the
accused school admission register extract discloses he
is belonging to 'Hindu Pillai' as on his admission i.e on
22.5.1964. As per Ex.P.26 it discloses the accused
when admitted to school it discloses when he was
promoted to Ist std. his caste is shown as 'Pillai'.
35. It is pertinent to note that father of the accused
is working in PWD department as a driver of Tractor is
an undisputed fact. In this regard, the prosecution
has placed the service register extract of the father of
the accused as per Ex.P.24. Further prosecution has
also placed service register extract of accused as per
Ex.P.16 which discloses his caste is shown as 'Adi
Dravida'.
36. The learned SPP submits the accused has
defrauded the revenue authority by claiming caste
certificate as per Ex.D.2. In this regard learned SPP
has placed reliance on citation reported in (1994)6
SCC 241 in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another
30 Spl.C.255/2017
V/s. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and
others wherein it is held that:
"D. Constitution of India-Arts.366(25)
and 342-Constitution(SC/ST) Order-
Issuance of social status certificate-
evidence regarding affinity to any tribe or
caste status of a person- Caste is
determined on the basis of his/her parents
as caste is acquired by birth-entries in
school register showing his/her father's
caste, particularly of pre-Constitution
period, is of great evidentiary value-
Anthropological and ethnological
perspective relevant for determining caste of
the person"
37. The learned SPP brings to the court notice as per
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of
Tamil Nadu and others V/s. A.Guruswamy wherein it
is held that:
"(B)- Constitution of India-
Arts.341,342 and 366(24) & (25)-
Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes-
certificate of status as SC/ST - Nature of
opportunity to be given before
cancellation of -Giving an opportunity to
the person concerned in accordance
with principles of natural justice to
establish his case, held, sufficient-Such
opportunity need not be(1994)6 SCC
241 like that given in a suit - Natural
justice-Audi alteram partem-Hearing"
31 Spl.C.255/2017
and brings to the court notice the para-3 which is as
follows:
"The only question is: whether the suit is
maintainable? By operation of Section 9
of CPC, a suit of civil nature cognizance of
which is expressly or by implication
excluded, cannot be tries by any civil
Court. The declaration of the President of
India, under Article 341 and 342 of the
Constitution, with respect of lists of the
Scheduled and Scheduled Tribes in
relation to a State, that a particular caste
or tribe is defined in Article 366(24) or
(25) respectively, is conclusive subject to
an amendment by the Parliament under
Article 341(2) and 342(2) of the
Constitution. By necessary implication,
the jurisdiction of the civil Court to take
cognizance of and give a declaration
stands prohibited. The question then is:
whether the respondent has been given
an opportunity to establish has case before the authorities cancelled his community certificate obtained by him? The order of the District Collector dated 2.12.1991 clearly mentions that an opportunity was given to the respondent and he himself had examined him. The District Collector does not decide it like a suit. What he does is an enquiry complying with the principles of rational justice. He considered his stand, namely, one of the sale deed of 1962 in which his status was declared as Kattunaicken but the same was disbelieved by the District Collector before cancellation. It is self- serving document. The authority had, therefore, given an opportunity to the 32 Spl.C.255/2017 respondent to establish his status and found that the certificate previously obtained was wrong and illegal. Accordingly, he cancelled the certificate given to the respondent on January 23, 1971. It is then contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the guidelines had been given by the Collector in the manner in which the enquiry is to be conducted and the synonyms are to be taken and in pursuance thereof, the Revenue Division Officer granted him the certificate. We find that the stand taken is not correct. The guidelines are only to identify the persons and not to give a declaration as to which community comes under particular entry of the Presidential notification. It is then contended that the respondent has been given the right to enjoy the status right from 1971 and, therefore, the principle of estoppel applies to him. We find that it has no force. It is a fraud played on the Constitution. A person who plays fraud and obtains a false certificate cannot plead estoppel. The principle of estoppel arises only when a lawful promise was made and acted upon to his detriment: the party making promise is estopped to resile from the promise. In this case, the principle of estoppel is inapplicable because there is no promise made by the State that the State would protect perpetration of fraud defeating the Constitutional objective; no promise was made that his false certificate will be respected and accepted by the State. On the other hand, he is liable for prosecution. The courts would not lend assistance to perpetrate fraud on the Constitution and he cannot be 33 Spl.C.255/2017 allowed to get the benefit of the fraudulent certificate obtained from the authorities. The declaration issued by the courts below is unconstitutional and without jurisdiction."
38. As per the documents placed on record, in this case the accused though has contended in the defence by placing Exs.D.1 to 7 other family members of the accused have obtained caste certificate as 'Adi Dravida' cannot be accepted since originally caste certificate issued to the accused is sister and his brother Ex.P.12, 17 and even Ex.D.1 if read with Ex.P.9, Ex.P.16 and 24 establishes accused has changed the original caste certificate issued as 'Pillai' into 'Adi Dravida'. It is not the defence of the accused that the 'Pillai' and 'Adi Draida' is one and the same.
It is true as per the admission of the witness during the course of the cross-examination that there is no caste by name 'pillai' in Karnataka is an admitted fact. However there was no occasion for the accused to change the caste from 'Pillai' 34 Spl.C.255/2017 to 'Adi Dravida'. Therefore the defence taken by the accused that his family members are shown as 'Adi Dravida' though the same Ex.D.2 to 7 including the family members is accepted the accused cannot be accepted as a person belonging to 'Adi Drivada' instead of his caste shown as 'Pillai'. Therefore accused has changed caste from 'Pillai' to Adi Dravida' only to obtain employment even as supported by Ex.D.1. The SSLC cumulative record goes against the accused. Therefore the citation relied by the learned SP directly goes to the root of the present case and to the facts on hand. In (2004)2 SCC 105 in case of R.Vishwanatha Pillai V/s. State of Kerala and others wherein it is held that:
"D.Service Law-Appointment-Validity of appointment-Appointment procured against a reserved post by producing a false caste certificate, held, is void and non est."
"E. Service Law-Pensionary benefits-right to, held, accrues from a valid appointment and not from a void appointment-Hence, where the delinquent officer was dismissed for 35 Spl.C.255/2017 procuring appointment in a post reserved for SC candidate by producing a false caste certificate, plea to substitute the order of dismissal by an order of compulsory retirement or removal from service to protect the pensionary benefits as he had rendered service for a very long period (27 years in this case), rejected- Further held, such a person having obtained appointment by playing a fraud, held, not entitled ot invoke equity jurisdiction of Supreme Court to claim such a relief-Conditions for entitlement to equity, restated."
Therefore the prosecution is able to prove that there is material records sought by the accused before the concerned Tahsildar Bengaluru North from 'Pillai' to Adi Dravida' is established. Accordingly ingredients punishable u/s.420 of IPC is established. Accordingly based on the documents accused found guilty of the alleged offence punishable u/s.420 of IPC.
39. Now in the case on hand the learned SPP argues by relying on the citation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and submits as the accused has defrauded the action taken by the DCRE by making complaint and the investigation itself discloses that 36 Spl.C.255/2017 accused is guilty of alleged offence. Moreover the P.W.16 the Chairman of the Caste Verification Committee has set aside the caste of the accused which is established by placing cogent documents.
Therefore accused is to be held guilty of the alleged offence.
40. In the case on hand, learned counsel for the accused actually submits as per the citation relied by the prosecution itself when the Caste Verification Committee is constituted only as per the statute of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, the same cannot be applied retrospectively. Therefore the enquiry conducted by the Commission is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s.3(1)(ix) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989. It is brought to the court notice that the citation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (1994)6 SCC 241 in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another V/s. Addl. Commisisoner, Tribal Development and others the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that wherein 37 Spl.C.255/2017 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed the procedure of verifying the caste of the accused as per the present Act which was not existing as on the date of obtaining caste certificate cannot be applied retrospectively seems reasonable. Therefore the accused cannot be held guilty for the offence punishable u/s.3(1)(ix) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 which is brought to the court notice as held in 2004(2)SCC 105 in case of R.Vishwanatha Pillai V/s.
State of Kerala and others has held as:
"F. Constitution of India-Art.141- Application of an earlier decision in a subsequent case-Whether on facts prospective or retrospective-Delinquent officer in the present case procuring appointment against a reserved post on the basis of a false caste certificate in 1977-State Government constituting Scrutiny Committee under direction of Supreme Court in Kumari Madhurai Patil case , (1994) 6 SCC 241, decided on 2.9.1994 -authority concerned initiating investigation prior to, but scrutiny Committee conducting inquiry subsequent to, that date-Pursuant to the said inquiry Department passing dismissal order-In such circumstances, the application of Kumari Madhuri Patil case, held , not retrospective."
38 Spl.C.255/2017 Therefore the accused cannot be held guilty for the offence punishable u/s.3(1)(ix) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989. Moreover accused caste is shown as 'Pillai' as per the original admission register extract and even father of the accused is also considered as a schedule tribe person. Under such circumstances accused cannot be held guilty of the offence punishable u/s.3(1)(ix) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 though accused has changed the caste by making misrepresentation from the date of the original caste certificate being issued as 'Pillai' to 'Adi Draivida'. The prosecution has failed to to prove the ingredients of offence punishable u/s.3(1)(ix) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989. Accordingly this court is satisfied to answer Point No.1 for consideration in the Affirmative and Point No.2 in the Negative.
41. POINT No.3 : In view of my foregoing reasons, I proceed the pass the following;
ORD ER Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted 39 Spl.C.255/2017 of the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(ix) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989. To hear on Sentence.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed and typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19th day of March 2024).
(Rajesh Karnam.K) LXX Addl. City Civil & Session Judge, Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Heard on Sentence. The learned counsel for the accused submits accused was previously in JC for 3 days. The accused is now a senior citizen and has to look after his aged mother, aged about 89 years. The accused medical condition is delicate as he has to take treatment for diabetes and also hypertension.
The learned SPP submits no leniency is to be shown to the accused as the offence is committed against the State in obtaining the document. This Special Court has to impose maximum punishment.
On going through the entire materials on record, the maximum punishment provided is 40 Spl.C.255/2017 of 7 years with fine. This court is satisfied to impose 2 year simple imprisonment on accused and fine of Rs.10,000/-.
In default accused shall under go simple imprisonment for 3 months/till paying fine whichever is earlier.
The learned counsel for accused has filed application U/s 389(3) of Cr.P.C.
Accused in the case on hand is convicted only for the offence punishable under the provision of IPC and acquitted of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(ix) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989.
Accordingly, the application filed by the accused is allowed.
Accused shall deposit fine, is given time till 21.03.2024.
The period of sentence of imprisonment of accused is suspended till appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed and typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19th day of March 2024).
(Rajesh Karnam.K) LXX Addl. City Civil & Session Judge, Special Judge, Bengaluru.
41 Spl.C.255/2017 AN N E XU RE
1.WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Veerabhadraiah
P.W.2 : K.Vajramani
P.W.3 : B.P.Parvathamma
P.W.4 : K.T.Krishnaswamy
P.W.5 : Vijayalakshmi
P.W.6 : Aruna Prabhu
P.W.7 : R.T.Shivarudrappa
P.W.8 : Kaliyappa
P.W.9 : T.S.Timmegowda
P.W.10 : K.Vishwanath
P.W.11 : Irshad Ahmed Khan
P.W.12 : Gangaiah
P.W.13 : M.Shivashankar
P.W.14 : Sister Sagai Mary
P.W.15 : M.Nagaraj
P.W.16 : Dr.D.S.Vishwanath
2.DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a)(b) Signature of PW.1, 2
Ex.P.2 : Letter of Tahasildar
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW.4
Ex.P.3 : Letter of Deputy Director(SWD)
42 Spl.C.255/2017
Ex.P.4 : letter
Ex.P.5 Caste verification department
Ex.P.6 : Caste report of Tahsildar
Ex.P.7 : Order of Tahsildar
Ex.P.8 : FIR
Ex.P.8(a) : Signature of PW.2
Ex.P.9 : Attested copy of Admission
Register
Ex.P.9(a)(b) : Signature of selected part,
signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.10 : Statement of P.W.3
Ex.P.10(a) : Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.11 : Order coy of Tahasildar, Bengaluru
North
Ex.P.11(a) : Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.12 : Letter
Ex.P.12(a) : Signature of P.W.5
Ex.P.13 : Admission register
Ex.P.13(a) : Signature of P.W.4
Ex.P.14 : Letter of AAO
Ex.P.14(a) : Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.15 : Attested copy of caste certificate
Ex.P.15(a) : Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.16 : Service Register
Ex.P.16(a)(x) : Signature of P.W.7 Ex.P.17 : Letter of Head Master Ex.P.17(a) : Signature of P.W8 Ex.P.18 : Admission register Ex.P.18(a)(b) Specific part in Register, signature of P.W.8 Ex.P.19 : Covering letter 43 Spl.C.255/2017 Ex.P.19(a) : Signature of P.W.9 Ex.P.20 : School, register extract Ex.P.20(a) Signature of P.W.9 Ex.P.21 : School certificate Ex.P.21(a) : Signature of P.W.12 Ex.P.22 :Admission register Ex.P.22(a) : Signature of P.W.12 Ex.P.23 Letter Ex.P.23(a) : Signature of P.W.13 Ex.P.24 : Service book Ex.P.25 : School letter Ex.P.25(a) : Signature of P.W.14 Ex.P.26 : Admission register Ex.P.26(a) : Signature of P.W.14 Ex.P.27 : T.C. of A.Ramesh Ex.P.27(a) : Signature of P.W.14 Ex.P.28 : Application form Ex.P.28(a) : Signature of P.W.14 Ex.P.29 : Application form of Akkaiah Ex.P.29(a) : Signature of P.W.14 Ex.P.30 : Admission register Ex.P.30(a) : Signature of P.W.14
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
D.W.1 : A.Ramesh
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Ex.D.1 : SSLC. Cumulative record Ex.D.2 : caste certificate 44 Spl.C.255/2017 Ex.D.3 : caste certificate of Raghunath Ex.D.4 : caste certificate of Gopinath Ex.D.5 : Family tree Ex.D.6 : caste certificate Ex.D.7 : caste certificate of 3 members
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
Nil (Rajesh Karnam.K) LXX Addl. City Civil & Session Judge, Special Judge, Bengaluru