Bangalore District Court
Halasurugate Ps vs P Ankaiah on 23 August, 2025
KABC010061052022
IN THE COURT OF LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-71)
Present:
Sri. SANTHOSH C.B., B.A., LL.B.,
L Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
C/c LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.C. No. 476/2022
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
COMPLAINANT : State of Karnataka
By Halasurugate P.S.,
Bengaluru
[By Learned Public Prosecutor]
Vs.
P. Ankaiah
ACCUSED : S/o Late Kondaiah
Aged about 67 years, R/at
Temmadipadu village, Vinjimuru
taluk, Katepalli post, Nelluru
district, Andrapradesh
Old address: No.NA/436, BEL
colony, Jalahalli, Bengaluru
[By Sri.Shankarmurthy S K.
Adv]
1 Date of Commission of offence From 13.05.2009 till
30.10.2019
2 Date of report of occurrence 30.10.2019
2
Spl.C.No.476/2022
3 Date of arrest of Accused : 24.01.2024
Date of release of Accused : 27.01.2024
Period undergone in custody by 03 days
Accused :
4 Date of commencement of 09.07.2024
evidence
5 Date of closing of evidence 07.12.2024
6 Name of the complainant Sri. Narasimaiah C
7 Offences complained of U/sec.196, 198, 420 of
IPC and Sec.3(1)(q) of
SC&ST(PO)Act.
8 Opinion of the Judge Accused is acquitted.
JUDGMENT
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Directorate Civil Rights Enforcement, Bengaluru Mr.P Chandrashekhar, has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.196, 198, 420 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(q) of SC&ST(PO)Act.
2. The gist of the prosecution case as emanated from the charge sheet is that, accused though belonged to golla caste, by providing false information and documents, fraudulently availed caste certificate and misrepresented himself as he 3 Spl.C.No.476/2022 belongs to Adi Dravida community of Scheduled caste and thereby on 12.08.1985 got appointment and as Mazdoor at Bharath Electronics Limited (BEL) Jalahalli, Bengaluru and since then he is working at the said institute. Further on 13.05.2009 the accused again availed a caste certificate as if he belongs to Adi Andra of scheduled caste by rendering false documents and information to Tahsildar, Bengaluru north taluk, Bengaluru and thereby played fraud with the government and also the people belonging to scheduled caste.
2. Based on the first information lodged by the complainant, a crime case came to be registered against the accused. The accused was arrested on 24.01.2024, remanded to J.C. and released on 27.01.2024. Completing the investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against the accused on 24.02.2022 before this court.
3. Sri. SSK advocate appeared on behalf of the accused. On 08.04.2024, the charge was framed and read over to the accused, for which he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4
Spl.C.No.476/2022
4. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 05 witnesses as P.W.1 to 5 and got marked 7 documents as Ex.P1 to P7. The statement of the accused U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C was recorded on 21.06.2025. No defense evidence led.
5. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the entire records. On the basis of the materials available on record, the following points arise for my consideration:
1 Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts that accused belonged to golla caste, fraudulently availed caste certificate and misrepresented himself as he belongs to Adi Dravida community of Scheduled caste and thereby on 12.08.1985 got appointment and as Mazdoor at Bharath Electronics Limited (BEL) Jalahalli, Bengaluru and on 13.05.2009 the accused again availed a caste certificate as he belongs to Adi Andra of scheduled caste by rendering false documents and information to Tahsildar, Bengaluru north taluk, Bengaluru and thereby played fraud with the government and also the people belonging to scheduled caste and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(q) of ST & ST Act?5
Spl.C.No.476/2022 2 Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused by providing false information and documents to the revenue authorities on 12.08.1985 and on 13.05.2009, not only secured false caste certificate, but also obtained job on the strength of false caste certificate and played fraud on the state, cheated the government and also the people belonging to SC ST and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 420 of IPC?
3 What Order?
6. After the close scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments, my findings to the above points are as follows.
Point No. 1 & 2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : As per the final order:
for the following:
REASONS
7. Points No.1: In order to establish the case, the prosecution has cited 12 witnesses in the charge sheet and examined 5 witnesses as PW1 to PW5.
6
Spl.C.No.476/2022 PW1 is the complainant cum Police Inspector, who lodged the complaint against the accused. PW2 is the Deputy Commissioner and the Head of caste verification committee who canceled the caste certificate of the accused after enquiry.
PW3 is the Joint Director of the Social Welfare Department who participated in the caste verification process of the accused.
PW4 is the ASI who received complaint and registered the crime case against the accused.
PW5 is the deputy manager of Bharat Electronics Ltd. Who supplied service at records of the accused.
8. It is settled proposition of law that the burden in a criminal trial is always on the prosecution to prove the indictment doubt. This burden unless modified by legislative interference, continues on the shoulders of the prosecution from the beginning to the end of every criminal trial, 7 Spl.C.No.476/2022 whatever be the nature of evidence - direct or circumstantial and whatever be the defence taken up by the accused. In the light of the afore said principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court, the evidence of PW.1 to 5 coupled with the documentary evidence, the prosecution needs to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.
9. The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, a Special enactment is designed to address the systemic discrimination, social exclusion, and violence faced by marginalized communities of Schedule Castes ("SC") and Scheduled Tribes ("ST"). This was enacted to prevent crimes and atrocities against members of SC/ ST classes in India.
10. As per Section 8 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which deals with presumption as to offences. It provides that if the accused was acquainted with the victim/family, the court shall presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim, unless proved otherwise. However, in 8 Spl.C.No.476/2022 order to give rise to presumption, there should be an allegation that the victim belongs to SC/ST community and then accused is not a member of SC/ST community and he committed the offence with the knowledge that the victim is a member of SC/ST community. It is only when these foundational facts are disclosed, the presumption under section 8 of act could be drawn. Bearing these principles in mind, the case of the prosecution needs to be assessed.
11. As per Ex.P1 complaint, the complainant Mr. C Narasimaiah, the police inspector of CRE (Civil Rights Enforcement cell, Bengaluru, stated that on the basis of the information given by CW6 K Narayanaswami, he lodged first information against the accused who was one among the other persons alleged to have furnished false caste certificate and secured job in BEL company. It is further stated in the complaint that the accused was Golla by caste but he stated to have obtained caste certificate in the name of scheduled caste claiming to be Adi Karnataka as per the caste certificate dated 13.05.2009. Since it was decided before the ADGP, Civil 9 Spl.C.No.476/2022 Rights Enforcement Cell that the accused was golla by caste and he does not comes under SC&ST Act, the present complaint is lodged to initiate criminal action against the accused.
12. In the background of these allegations the case of the prosecution needs to be assessed and the entire case of the prosecution is based on documentary evidence.
13. The accused is charged for the offenses punishable U/sec. 420 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(q) of SC&ST Act. Sec.3(1)(q) of SC&ST Act prescribed punishment for a persons who gives any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
14. PW1 Mr. C Narasimaiah, Police Inspector, Civil Right Enforcement Cell, Bengaluru deposed that the accused by furnishing false caste certificate to the BEL company claiming to a member of SC&ST has secured job and thereby cheated the members of SC&ST. He further deposed that accused obtained false Scheduled caste certificate on 10 Spl.C.No.476/2022 13.05.2009 and the same has been canceled by the district caste verification committee.
15. In the cross-examination made by learned counsel for the accused PW1 admitted that the first informant Mr. K Narayana Swami was also an employee of BEL. He further admitted that the accused joined to the service in the year 1984/85. PW1 pleaded ignorance about the Accused furnishing caste certificate in the year 1984-85 and about his retirement from his service.
16. PW2 Mr. K A Dayananda, Deputy Commissioner and the head of district caste verification committee deposed that on 27.03.2018 he conducted inquiry in respect of obtaining false caste certificate by the accused and receiving information from the Tahsildar. Thereafter he ordered to cancel the caste certificate of the accused.
17. PW2 further deposed that the accused originally hailed from Andrapradesh, Nelluru district, Tumudipalu village and he belongs to golla caste, but by giving false information 11 Spl.C.No.476/2022 the accused obtained caste certificate in the name of schedule caste. PW2 further deposed that the golla caste comes within the category of back word community and it does not falls within scheduled caste. He deposed that the accused did not appeared before the district caste verification committee, but the authority examined the family members of the accused, neighbors of the accused and after conducting spot mahazar it was confirmed that the accused belong to golla caste. Even the accused while admitting his children to the school has mentioned his caste as golla. PW2 identified the entire inquiry report as per Ex.P3.
18. In the cross-examination, PW2 admitted that at the time of inquiry the accused had retired from his service and they had address of the accused situated at BEL quarters. PW2 denied that they conducted inquiry exparte, knowingly that the accused is not residing in the given address.
19. PW3 Mr. Lakshman Reddy, Joint Director of Social Welfare Department deposed that he participated in the 12 Spl.C.No.476/2022 caste verification committee proceedings conducted against the accused and canceled the caste certificate of the accused obtained in the name of SC&ST as per Ex.P2 order.
20. PW4 Mr. Venkatesh, the ASI of Halasuregate police station deposed that on 30.10.2019 he received Ex.P1 complaint and registered the crime case as per Ex.P4.
21. PW5 Mr. Rangaswami, Deputy Manager, ES&SW, BEL deposed that on the basis of the requisition given by the police, he provided 06 documents pertaining to the accused. He also gave the appointment letter, salary slip, service records of the accused and the said documents are marked at Ex.P7. In the cross-examination made by the learned counsel for the accused PW5 admitted that the accused was not given any promotion on the basis of his caste. PW5 pleaded his ignorance about the caste of the accused. On the court questioning the witness, PW5 deposed that the accused joined his service on 03.08.1985 and he gave caste certificate on 24.02.1979.
13
Spl.C.No.476/2022
22. This all the ocular evidence placed by the prosecution in support of its case. In so far as the documentary evidence is concerned Ex.P1 is the complaint lodged by the complainant, Ex.P2 is the proceedings of the case verification committee and the cancellation order passed by the deputy commissioner, Ex.P3 is the proceedings of the caste verification committee, Ex.P4 is FIR, Ex.P5 is requisition letter given to the General Manager, BEL Bengaluru by the IO. Ex.P6 is the letter issued by PW5 Mr. Rangaswamy to the IO enclosing the documents of the accused. Ex.P7 is the attestation form submitted by the accused at the time of joining to the service.
23. It is the contention of the learned Public prosecutor that the accused by obtaining false caste certificate has secured job in BEL company in the year 1985 and thereby he deprived the benefits which are exclusively available to the members of SC&ST. It is her contention that the accused was golla by caste and he obtained job by stating that he belongs to Adi Andra-Scheduled caste. By relying upon the evidence of PW1 to 5 and documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to 7, learned public 14 Spl.C.No.476/2022 prosecutor seeks conviction of the accused for the offenses charged against him.
24. On the contrary learned counsel for the accused opposing the arguments canvassed by the prosecution side and contended that the case of the prosecution itself is misconceived on the ground that the SC&ST act came into force in the year 1989. The accused joined into service in the year 1984-85. He argued that retrospective effect to the act can not be given and the provisions of SC&ST act can not be applied against the accused. In support of his contentions the learned defense counsel furnished the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.8857/2018 between Savithri @ Savithramma Vs State of Karnataka wherein the Hon'ble court has held that a person can not be punished for non existing law.
25. He also relied on the decisions reported in AIR 1953 Supreme Court 394 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution, no person 15 Spl.C.No.476/2022 shall be convicted for any offenses except for violation of law in force at the time of commission of act charged for the offences. In Another decision reported in AIR 1962 SC1753, the Hon'ble Apex Court has followed the same proposition.
26. Bearing the above principles of law in mind, the case of the prosecution needs to be assessed. According to the prosecution case, the accused joined to the post of Mazdoor in BEL, Jalahalli, Bengaluru on 12.08.1995 and at the time of joining to the services he alleged to have stated that his caste as Adi Karnataka which comes under SC&ST. However the SC&ST(PO)Act 1989 came into force on 11.09.1989 enacted by the parliament in the 40th year Republic of India and subsequently several amendments to the act taken place during the year 2016, 2018 and 2019. Therefore it is pretty clear that the act was not in force as on 12.08.1995, and further the sec. 3(1)(q) of SC&ST act can not be pressed into service. 16
Spl.C.No.476/2022
27. The decisions relied by the learned defense counsel squarely applicable to the facts of the case. The accused can not be convicted for a law which is not in existence. Hence I answer point No.1 in Negative.
28. In so far as the other offense being charged against the accused is concerned, the prosecution has alleged that the accused has committed the offenses punishable U/sec. 196, 198 and 420 of IPC. But this court has charged the accused only for the offenses punishable U/sec. 420 of IPC and Sec.3(1)
(q) of SC&ST Act. Sec.420 of IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person. As per the evidence of PW1 to 4, the complainant by giving false information alleged to have obtained the caste certificate dated 13.05.2009 as Adi Karnataka knowingly he belongs to golla community.
29. The caste verification committee headed by deputy commissioner PW2, conducted inquiry and canceled the caste certificate obtained by the accused by the order dated 17 Spl.C.No.476/2022 23.07.2018. PW1 to 5 are all official witnesses and has no personal knowledge about the caste of the accused. It is only on the basis of the proceedings held before the caste verification committee, the complaint came to be lodged. Absolutely no documents are placed to show that the accused belongs to golla caste, except the proceedings of the caste verification committee. PW2 and 3 are president and member secretary to the caste verification committee, categorically admitted in the cross-examination that the accused was not secured for inquiry and the notice to the accused was issued to the address at BEL where he was not residing.
30. Therefore, the caste verification committee proceeded to inquire the caste of the accused unilaterally by placing the accused as exparte. Admittedly, the accused retired from services on 01.10.2016 and he was revealed on 30.09.2016. the present complaint came to be lodged on 30.10.2019 at the instance of one CW6 K Narayanaswamy who is also an employee of BEL. When such being the case it is highly improbable to accept that the accused still continue to 18 Spl.C.No.476/2022 live in the quarters of the employees at BEL. Therefore there is no proper service of notice on the accused by the district caste verification committee and the right of audience to the accused is not provided before the caste verification committee and thereby the principles of 'Audi alteram partem' is not followed.
31. It is true, in the service records of the accused, his caste is mentioned as Adi Andhra but it is not forthcoming from the records that the accused was given employment only on the basis of his caste in the year 1985. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused was given employment in the category reserved for SC&ST. In this regard, the evidence of PW5 is worth to be noted. PW5 has categorically deposed that the accused was not given any benefits of SC&ST since his employment was not as such. PW5 further deposed that the caste certificate of the accused dated 24.02.1979 which is not produced by the prosecution. Except the proceedings of the caste verification committe, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused obtained false caste certificate in his name claiming to be a member of SC&ST and thereby utilized 19 Spl.C.No.476/2022 the same to secure employment in BEL. The alleged caste certificate dated 13.05.2009 is not given by the accused to secure employment as he was appointed to the service in the year 1985.
32. Moreover, the said caste certificate is not produced and marked before this court. Therefore it is highly impossible to accept the contentions of the prosecution that the accused furnished false information to the public servant, obtained false caste certificate, knowingly he belongs to golla caste and used the said caste certificate as true.
33. The one sided caste verification committee proceedings cannot be considered to establish the prosecution case. When the accused did not furnished any caste certificate to his employer at the time of joining to his service and he was not given any employment in the quota reserved for the members of SC&ST, the charges leveled against the accused can not be accepted as true. In the result it can be said that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond 20 Spl.C.No.476/2022 reasonable doubt. There is no evidence on record to hold that the accused obtained false caste certificate to secure job at BEL. The charges leveled against the accused remained unproved. Hence I answer point No.2 in the Negative.
34. Point No.3:- In view of my findings on the above points and the reasons discussed above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under S.235(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused is acquitted of the charge brought against him.
The bail bonds of the accused and that of his surety shall continue for a period of six months in terms of S.437(a) of Cr.P.C., to ensure his appearance before the higher court in case of any appeal or revision.
*** (Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, Script corrected and then pronounced in open court on this day of 23rd day of August 2025) Digitally signed by C B CB SANTHOSH SANTHOSH Date:
2025.09.19 12:02:29 +0530 [Santhosh C.B.], c/c LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
21 Spl.C.No.476/2022 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION PW.1 C Narasimaiah PW.2 K A Dayananda PW.3 Lakshmana Reddy PW.4 Venkatesh PW.5 Rangaswamy LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P1 (a) Signature of PW 1 Ex.P.2 D C Order Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW.2 Ex.P2(b) Signature of PW.3 Ex.P3 Proceedings Ex.P.3(a)(b) Signature of PW 2,3 Ex.P.4 FIR Ex.P.5 Requisition Ex.P.6 Covering letter Ex.P.6(a) Signature of PW 5 Ex.P.7 Service records of accused (xerox) LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED -Nil- 22 Spl.C.No.476/2022 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE: -Nil- LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & M.OS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE -Nil- Digitally signed by C B CB SANTHOSH SANTHOSH Date: 2025.09.19 12:02:20 +0530 [Santhosh C.B.], C/c LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.