Bangalore District Court
State By Halasuru Gate vs It Is Further Deposed By P.W.1 That He Has ... on 18 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 18th day of May 2018.
Present: Shri V.Jagadeesh, B.Sc., LL.M.
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s.355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.3233/2012
Date of Offence : 1-1-1974 to 1-1-1975
Name of complainant : State by Halasuru Gate
Police Station, Bengaluru.
Name of accused : S.Suresh Babu s/o A.Shanmugam,
r/o No.28, Madakari Nayaka,
1st main road, Kowdenahalli
Grama, Yarrayyanapalya
Extension, Ramamurthynagar,
Bengaluru 16.
Offence complained off: U/s.420 of IPC.
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : As per final order
Date of Order : 18-5-2018.
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against 2 C.C.No.3233/2012 the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, the accused belongs to Mudliyar community and knowingly fully well that he was not belongs to Adidravida caste obtained caste certificate belongs to Adidravida caste in the year 1974-75 from the office of Tahsildar, Bengaluru north taluk and obtained a job in ITI and thereby played a fraud and dishonestly induced the public servant by issuing false caste certificate. Under such circumstances, the complainant has filed the complaint against the accused before the jurisdictional Police. Accordingly, the Halasuru Gate police have registered the case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC in Crime No.391/2008. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offence.
3. After appearance of the accused necessary documents as relied by the prosecution, are furnished to the accused as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Charge has been 3 C.C.No.3233/2012 framed and same is read over and explained to the accused The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Therefore, the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
4. C.Ws.1 to 21 have been cited as charge sheet witnesses. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, during the course of trial, C.Ws.9, 7, 3, 6, 15, 13, 11 and 19 are examined as P.Ws.1 to 8 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and closed its side. The accused got marked two documents as per Ex.D1 and D2. So far as other charge sheet witnesses are concerned, their presence is not secured, inspite of sufficient time and repeated issuance of summons and warrants. Therefore, they are dropped.
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused has not adduced any defence evidence on his behalf. Therefore, there is no oral evidence on behalf of the accused.
6. Heard the arguments of learned Senior A.P.P. and counsel appearing for accused. The points that would arise for my consideration are as under:
4 C.C.No.3233/2012
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC?
2. What order ?
7. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- The contention of the prosecution is that, the accused was belongs to Mudliyar community and knowingly fully well that he was not belongs to Adidravida caste obtained caste certificate belongs to Adidravida caste in the year 1974-75 from the office of Tahsildar, Bengaluru north taluk and obtained a job in ITI and thereby played a fraud and dishonestly induced the public servant by issuing false caste certificate and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
9. In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, C.W.9 is examined as P.W.1. P.W.1 has deposed that he was a Head 5 C.C.No.3233/2012 Master at St.Joseph High School, Mysore circle, Bengaluru between 2008 to 2012. He got marked the admission register extract of the accused as Ex.P1. He further deposed that as per Ex.P1 the accused caste was mentioned as Hindu Mudaliyar. However, to test the veracity of P.W.1 to disprove the case of the prosecution, the learned counsel appearing for the accused has cross-examined P.W.1 in detail. In the course of cross-examination, P.W.1 has deposed that he does not know who has prepared the Ex.P1 and he has applied for supply of Ex.P1. It is further pleaded ignorance by P.W.1 that he does not know personally about the accused. It is further deposed by P.W.1 that he has not given any admission register extract of the accused to the police. When that being the case, the issuance of Ex.P1 from authorized person is doubtful. In the course of cross-examination, the learned counsel for the accused has confronted certificates issued by primary and high school which have been marked as Exs.D1 and D2. It is admitted by P.W.1 that in Exs.D1 and D2 the caste of the accused is shown as Hindu Adidravida. Therefore, the allegations made 6 C.C.No.3233/2012 against the accused that he belongs to Hindu Mudaliyar, but not Adidravida is disproved by Exs.D1 and D2. The perusal of Exs.D1 and D2 clearly shows those documents were issued by St.Joseph High school, Briand Square, Bengaluru on 24-7-1984 and 25-7-1984. These documents clearly shows that way back in the year 1984-85, the caste of the accused was shown as Hindu Adidravida. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused in creation of caste certificate.
10. C.W.7 is examined as P.W.2. P.W.2 was the employee of ITI in the year 1988 in which the accused was also working. It is deposed by P.W.2 that as requested by Investigating Officer he has produced service register particulars and other register in respect of appointment of accused. It is also admitted by P.W.2 that the accused was served the service for sufficient length of time and retired from service on VRs. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the accused is not in service and he has joined the service way back in the year 1974-75. But the counsel appearing for the accused has cross-examined P.W.2 in detail. In the course 7 C.C.No.3233/2012 of cross-examination P.W.2 deposed that he does not know the accused personally and further deposed to the following effect:
May be true the accused belongs to "Adi dravida" and might have selected under reservation category. It is true to suggest that, I do not know whether he has furnished false certificate or not.
The evidence of P.W.2 as above is not sufficient to prove the allegations made against the accused with regard to his caste. Moreover, P.W.2 has admitted that the acused may be belongs to Adidravida.
11. C.W.3 is examined as P.W.3 and C.W.6 is examined as P.W.4. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the neighbours of the accused person and also witnesses to the mahazar. The alleged mahazar was marked as Ex.P3. In the course of cross-examination P.Ws.3 and 4 have pleaded ignorance about the caste of the father of the accused and also pleaded ignorance about his educational details. It is further deposed by P.Ws.3 and 4 that they do not know whether the 8 C.C.No.3233/2012 accused is belong to schedule caste or not. In the further cross-examination, P.Ws.3 and 4 have deposed to the following effect:
I do not know whether custom of the schedule caste and Mudaliyar community is almost similar. It is true to suggest that Mudaliyar community is Hindu community.
The ignorance pleaded by P.Ws.3 and 4 as above is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused with regard to his caste.
12. C.W.15 is examined as P.W.5 and C.W.13 is examined as P.W.6. Both P.Ws.5 and 6 have not supported the case of the prosecution and deposed that they have not made any statements before the police. Since P.Ws.5 and 6 have not supported the case of the prosecution, they were treated as hostile witnesses and cross-examined by the learned Senior A.P.P. with the permission court, but nothing has been elicited in the course of cross-examination, to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 9 C.C.No.3233/2012
13. C.W.11 is examined as P.W.7. P.W.7 has deposed that she was the head Mistress of St.Anthony Primary School, Ramamurthynagar, Bengaluru. It is further deposed by P.W.7 that the daughter of the accused Kum.S.Deepthi was admitted to their school for 1st standard and records shows the caste as Hindu Mudaliyar. The extract furnished by her is marked as Ex.P5. But in the course of cross-examination P.W.7 has deposed that she has not given any statement before the police. Similarly, she pleaded ignorance to the effect that who has entered the details in the admission register of the daughter of the accused. It is further deposed by P.W.7 that she cannot say the caste of the accused without referring the documents. It is also deposed by P.W.7 that the police have not taken any documents from their school. Therefore, the school records of the accused produced before the court are not authenticated and those documents cannot be considered. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.7 is also not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.
10 C.C.No.3233/2012
14. C.W.19 is examined as P.W.8. In the course of chief-examination P.W.8 has deposed with regard to his official duty discharged by him during his tenure. In the course of cross-examination, P.W.8 has categorically deposed that he has not investigated the matter in the present case. Similarly, P.W.8 has pleaded ignorance to the following effect:
I do not know where the father of the accused was working. I do not know whether the father of the accused was working in MEIS, Tumkur road, Bengaluru. I do not know the caste of the father of the accused. As per my knowledge I have obtained the documents pertains to the primary and high school in which accused was studying. I do not know about the Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. I do not know who got admission to the school for children of the accused. I do not know caste of the wife of the accused. I do not know the caste of the father of the accused.11 C.C.No.3233/2012
The ignorance pleaded by P.W.8 as above clearly shows that he tried to hide the real facts with regard to caste of the accused. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.8 is not at all sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.
15. It is also important point to be noted at this stage itself that the complainant is not examined in the present case so as to prove the allegations made in the course of complaint. It is also important point to be noted that the prosecution has failed to place materials before the court more particularly information issued by concerned Government to disprove that the Mudaliyar community is not comes under Adidravida. Admittedly, the accused is originally from Kerala. It is also important point to be noted at this stage itself that admittedly; the accused was joined service in ITI way back in the year 1974-75 and retired on VRS. It is also admitted fact that the accused has got all the promotions during his tenure. If at all the accused belongs to different caste and filed a false and frivolous caste certificate in getting job, it is for the concerned authority to take action against him within reasonable time, but that is not done so. Though the 12 C.C.No.3233/2012 question of limitation does not arise in this case, but there is a lacuna on the part of the concerned employer to raise such an issue immediately after joining the service. Therefore, latches on the part of the concerned authority are not explained properly and they cannot take advantage of the same. Therefore, under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, it is held that the accused is entitled for acquittal for the alleged offence. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
16. Point No.2:- In view of my answer on the point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. Therefore, he is acquitted for the said offence under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail and surety bonds of the accused stands cancelled.13 C.C.No.3233/2012
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, revised and then corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 18th day of May 2018).
(V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
P.W.1, Arunswamy, P.W.2, Jadavi Raman, P.W.3, Ashokkumar, P.W.4, Ganesh, P.W.5, Mahesh, P.W.6, Pillappa, P.W.7, Sister Irene, P.W.8, Maruthi Prasanna D.V;
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:-
Ex.P1, Admission register extract,
Ex.P1(a), Signature of P.W.1,
Ex.P2, Covering letter,
Ex.P2(a), Signature of P.W.2,
Ex.P2(b), Signature of P.W.8,
Ex.P3, Mahazar,
Ex.P3(a), Signature of P.W.3,
Ex.P3(b), Signature of P.W.4,
Ex.P3©, Signature of P.W.8,
Ex.P4, Statement of P.W.5,
Ex.P5, Certified copy of admission register extract,
Ex.P5(a), Relevant entry in Ex.P5,
Ex.P6, Detail extract of S.Deepthi,
Ex.P6(a), Signature of P.W.7,
14 C.C.No.3233/2012
Ex.P7, Admission register extract,
Ex.P7(a), Signature of P.W.8,
Ex.P8, Certified copy of admission register
pertaining to relevant entry,
Ex.P8(a), Signature of P.W.8,
Ex.P8(b), Receivers signature,
Ex.P9, Admission extract,
Ex.P9(a), Receivers signature,
Ex.P10, Certified copy of admission register,
Ex.P10(a), Particular entry at Sl.No.41/1997-98,
Ex.P10(b), Receivers signature;
Material Objects Produced:- NIL
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:-NIL List of documents marked on behalf of the defence:-
Ex.D1, Certificate pertains to middle school, Ex.D2, Certificate pertains to high school;
(V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.15 C.C.No.3233/2012
18/5/2018 State by Sr.APP Accused C/B For Judgment (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court) ORDER The accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C. Therefore, he is acquitted for the said offence under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail and surety bonds of the accused stands cancelled.
(V.Jagadeesh) I ACMM, Bengaluru.16 C.C.No.3233/2012 17 C.C.No.3233/2012