Karnataka High Court
Sri G C Nekar vs State Of Karnataka on 27 September, 2019
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2173 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
SRI G C NEKAR
S/O LATE CHANNAPPA NEKAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O NO. 1680, 5TH MAIN
6TH CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT
BANGALORE-65
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: H PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
RURAL POLICE STATION, SHIKARIPURA,
REPRESENTED BY STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BANGALORE-02
2. K V SATHYANARAYNA
S/O VENKATARAMA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
INCHARGE LIBRARIAN
HOSABALE POST
SORABHA TALUK
2
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577216.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
R2-SERVED-UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE SO FOR IT RELATES TO
PETR. AND INCIDENTALLY THE PROCEEDING AGAINST THE
PETR. IN C.C.NO.1312/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC,
SHIKARIPURA.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner is shown as accused No.2 in the charge sheet filed by the Shikaripura police for the alleged offences punishable under sections 120A, 466, 468, 471 r/w. 34 of IPC.
2. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the allegations made in the charge sheet do not disclose the ingredients of the offences insofar as the petitioner is concerned. The sole allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner herein made a false certification in the records so as to facilitate accused No.3 to secure an appointment to the Group-D post. The charge sheet does not 3 contain any such document bearing the signature and the certification of the petitioner and hence the prosecution of the petitioner is illegal and amounts to abuse of process of court.
3. Further, it is contended that initially the private complaint was registered against five accused persons including the Director of the Dept. of Public Library (accused No.1) Superintendent of Dept. of Public Library (accused No.2), one Nagarajappa (accused No.3), Library Assistant (accused No.4) and the Head Master of Govt. Higher Primary School (accused No.5). But charge sheet is laid only against C.S.Nagaraju (accused No.3) and the present petitioner was arraigned as accused No.2. There is no explanation in the charge sheet for dropping the name of other accused persons from the array of the accused. The petitioner was not working as Chief Librarian at Shikaripura, Shimoga Dist., as on the date of certification of the documents. He has not signed any documents certifying the correctness of the records relating to accused No.3. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offences is patently illegal and an abuse of process of court. 4
4. Learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1 however seriously disputed the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner and by referring to the allegations made in the charge sheet and the material produced before the Magistrate, reiterated that a circular was issued by the Director of the Public Library Department, authorizing the Director/Chief Librarians to personally visit the schools which issued the certificates and documents relating to the educational qualification of the candidates applying for the Group -D posts and to issue necessary certificates as to their correctness, after verification with the original documents maintained in the school. Petitioner issued false certificate to the effect that the accused No.3 had studied upto V Standard in the Government Model P.B.S. School, Ulsoor, Bangalore, but it turned out that accused No.1 (originally accused No.3) did not study in the said school during the relevant period and as such, there is reliable material to prosecute the accused for the above offences and thus sought to dismiss the petition.
5
5. Since the learned counsel for petitioner vociferously contended that the very document on which the prosecution has based its case was not available in the charge sheet, the original records were secured from the trial court and the IO was also directed to submit his explanation with regard to the documents produced before the court. The IO has submitted his written explanation dated 26.9.2019 inter alia stating that after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Civil Judge and JMFC Court on 14.5.2011 which was numbered as CC.No.1312/2011. Along with the charge sheet, the documents seized in PF No.99/2010 (which consisted of all 6 documents mentioned at Sl.No.1 to 6 referred to as P1 to P6 in the seizure mahazar) were submitted to the court. For having submitted the said documents, necessary entries were made in the muddemal register maintained in the police station. The copies of the extract of the said register are enclosed to his explanation. He further submitted that the charge sheet was received by the concerned court official after verifying the concerned PF documents and he learnt from ASI Rajappa of Shikaripura Police Station that he had furnished Xerox copies of 6 P3, P5 AND P6 only (documents at Sl.No.3, 5 and 6) mentioned in PF No.99/2010, to the Addl. State Public Prosecutor on 23.7.2019 as copies of P1, P2 and p4 were not available in the Police Station. Further he has stated that since the police station file including copy of the charge sheet was not stitched and was not properly paginated and as it has changed many hands till today, he is not in a position to say why the 3 documents namely P1, P2 and P4 mentioned at Sl.Nos.1, 2 and 4 in PF.No.99/10 are found missing from the police station file.
6. From the explanation offered by the Investigating Officer, it could be gathered that the documents mentioned at Sl.Nos.1 to 6 referred to as P1 to P6 in the seizure mahazar were submitted to the court along with PF No.99/2010. The original PF.No.99/2010 is at page No.38 of the original records forwarded by the trial court. The said PF No.99/2010 dated 13.9.2010 reveals that the documents mentioned at Sl.Nos.1 to 6 were produced before learned Magistrate and amongst them, Sl.No.04 was permitted to be retained by the police. Sl.No.04 is 7 the conduct certificate attested by A.Krishnappa, former Minister and MLA.
7. The dispute now pertains to the certificate/ endorsement made by the petitioner herein certifying that the documents issued by the Govt. Model P.B.S. School, Ulsoor, Bangalore were found to be true and correct. The Xerox copy of the said document is available in the file and learned counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute the fact that the copy of the said document is given to him along with the charge sheet. The original file also contains only the copy of the letter issued by the petitioner (page No.30) to the IO wherein he has confirmed that as per the directions, he had visited the school where the accused C.S.Nagaraj, s/o. Shivalingaparam, studied in V standard and after verifying the school records, certified the correctness thereof as per Government rules. The prosecution has proceeded on the basis that the appointment was given to accused No.1 based on the certification/confirmation made by the petitioner. The school records containing the certificate/endorsement made by the petitioner are seem to have 8 been seized from the school as per the seizure panchanama dated 13.9.2010 and the same were produced before the Magistrate under PF No.13.9.2010. Under the said circumstance, if for any reason, the original documents are found missing from the case records, the same may have to be inquired into by the trial court and take appropriate action in that regard, but the same cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings initiated against petitioner. Since the material relied on by the prosecution in proof of the accusations levelled against the petitioner prima facie disclose that the petitioner has issued a false certificate, based on which employment was secured by accused No.1, there is sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner for the alleged offences.
8. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner that on account of dropping the names of accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 from the charge sheet, does not absolve the petitioner of the offences charged against him. Since the investigation revealed that the appointment was secured by accused No.1 (originally accused No.3) solely based on the confirmation given by the 9 petitioner and there being no material to show that the other persons named in the private complaint were instrumental in creating the said document, the non prosecution of the other accused does not exculpate the petitioner of the charges levelled against him. As a result, I do not find any justifiable ground to quash the impugned proceedings.
Accordingly, petition is dismissed. However, since the original records produced along with the charge sheet are stated to be missing, the trial Court shall immediately hold an enquiry into the matter and take appropriate steps to trace the documents and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bss