Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. I have heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel, and Mr. D.C Kabir, learned counsel, for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. N.C. Pal, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Tripura, and Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel, for the CBI.

7. As already indicated above, the petitioner has put to challenge sustainability of the two memoranda, dated 05.12.2005 and 10.05.2006. The first memorandum directs the petitioner to show cause as to why departmental proceeding should not be initiated against him on the ground that he has submitted false caste certificate in order to get appointment in the IAS and the second memorandum directs the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice contained in the earlier Memorandum, dated 05.12.2005. These two memoranda are challenged, by way of this writ petition, on the ground that these two memoranda clearly indicate that the disciplinary authority has already concluded, as a matter of fact, that the petitioner had submitted a false caste certificate and managed to obtain thereby his entry into the IAS. The decision, thus, having already been taken, that the petitioner had submitted false caste certificate, the notice of show cause, contained in the two memoranda aforementioned, are, in substance, nothing but post-decisional hearing inasmuch as the disciplinary authority concerned has already concluded, without according opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, that he has obtained a false caste certificate and, with the help of this certificate, the petitioner has managed to become a member of the IAS. Without any finding from any statutory body or competent authority or the Court of law that the petitioner had submitted a false caste certificate as alleged, it is, according to the petitioner, wholly illegal to issue show cause notices to the petitioner in the manner as has been done in the present case.

14. In short, what Mr. Deb submits is that in the light of the decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), it is the Scrutiny Committee, constituted under the Maharashra Act, which is the competent authority to determine the caste status of a person and either grant him certificate or cancel his certificate if the certificate is false and if anybody is aggrieved by the decision of the Scrutiny Committee, the only remedy provided to such a person is to invoke Article 226 in the High Court of competent territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 and by no other means. In the case at hand, according to Mr. Deb, when Maharashtra Act has already come into force and the caste certificate, which is alleged to be false, is a certificate granted by the State of Maharashtra, it is the Scrutiny Committee, under the Maharashtra Act, which is the only competent authority or body to say whether the certificate, in question, granted to the petitioner, is or is not a false one. Without obtaining any such finding against the caste status of the petitioner, labelling his certificate as false is, contends Mr. Deb, bad in law and the CBI does not derive jurisdiction to lodge any criminal proceeding by describing the said certificate as false and the State of Tripura has committed monumental error by issuing show cause notices stating to the effect as if the petitioner‟s status, as a person not belonging to the Scheduled caste Community, is incorrect and is really false. This course of action, which the respondents have adopted, is, according to Mr. Deb, wholly untenable in law inasmuch as without a finding from the appropriate body as regards the validity of the petitioner‟s caste certificate, or an appropriate finding, in this regard, by the competent High Court under Article 226, and/or without even determining for itself as to whether what the CBI has alleged is true or sustainable in law, the disciplinary authority, i.e., the State of Tripura, has concluded that the petitioner‟s caste certificate is false and that the petitioner has obtained his entry into the IAS with the help of such a false caste certificate. This finding having been reached, reiterates Mr. Deb, without any opportunity of hearing having been given to the petitioner, the two Memoranda, containing the show case notices, as well as the criminal prosecution, are bad in law and the same may, therefore, be set aside and quashed.

74. The question, therefore, which needs to be examined, is as to whether any criminal prosecution of the present petitioner, in the face of the materials collected during investigation and furnished to the petitioner to sustain the charge-sheet, is possible under Sections 466, 468 and/or 120B IPC? This question is besides the question of maintainability, which has been discussed above in the light of the provisions contained in the Maharashtra Act. As regards prosecution of a person, who obtains a false caste certificate by furnishing false information or filing false statement or documents or by any other fraudulent means, Section 11 of the Maharashtra Act makes it clear that if a person obtains a fake caste certificate by furnishing false information or by filing fake statement or fake document or by other fraudulent means, he shall, on conviction, be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend up to two years or with fine, which shall not be less than two thousand rupees, but which may extend up to twenty thousand rupees, or both. In short, thus, the Maharashtra Act, as a special enactment, having provided for punishment of a person, if he obtains a fake caste certificate by furnishing false information or by filing fake statement or fake document or by other fraudulent means it is doubtful if, in a case of present nature, prosecution of a person, under the Indian Penal Code, would be maintainable when he obtains a fake caste certificate by furnishing false information or by filing fake statement or fake document or by other fraudulent means.

89. One can also not ignore is that at no point of time, the CBI or any other authority took requisite steps, in accordance with law, to challenge the verification of the caste certificate, which the Caste Scrutiny Committee had done, and, to use Mr. Kabir‟s language, the CBI has rather jumped straight to the conclusion of falsity of the certificate, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot but be regarded as mere surmises, conjecture or suspicion.

90. What follows from the above discussion is that the caste status of the father and grandfather of the petitioner were verified by the Caste Scrutiny Committee under the Maharashtra Act and they accepted that the petitioner‟s father and grandfather belonged to Bansor community. This caste was, admittedly, not declared as a scheduled caste till 1977. Thus, the entry of the petitioner into the IAS, on the basis of the caste certificate, which has been issued, as indicated hereinbefore, and verified by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which is the competent authority, cannot be said to be illegal or based on any false document. The caste certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner by a competent authority. Hence, the certificate, in question, can neither be regarded as a forged document nor is the certificate alleged by the CBI to be a forged one. This apart, the said certificate cannot be regarded or contended to be a false document until the time either the Scrutiny Committee, under the Maharashtra Act, or a High Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, holds the said certificate to be a false certificate. Mr. Kabir has considerable force in his argument, when he submits that the caste certificate, in question, cannot be termed as a false caste certificate in the absence of any finding having been rendered, in this regard, by an appropriate authority, under the Maharashtra Act, or by a High Court under Article 226 and, when the said certificate is not yet proved to be a false caste certificate, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted on the ground that he had used the said certificate knowing that the said caste certificate was a false certificate. This apart, there is not even an iota of material on record indicating, directly or indirectly, that the petitioner had known, in any manner whatsoever, that the said caste certificate, issued in his favour, was a false one provided that the caste certificate is a false one.