Annappa Manjappa Moger vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 December, 2008

Last Updated on

Karnataka High Court
Annappa Manjappa Moger vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 December, 2008
Author: N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH COURT 012' KARI\zATAI§fi:'

CIRCUIT B§NCi~i AT _I)IIARw.AD" " Ci > 

DATED THIS THE 1 1TH DAY Cay §1E{:§EMB_E:R 2<}'0$§II.,I.A 

BI'e:v:-?'_c_::R__E _

THE HON'8LE.  
CRIMINAL PETITEON N§;_'?'1Q7;.f{2® 8" *{.T]..III}'~f}RL.P. NVos.7 108 to
7 1 1312008, 2 1931  8$;"*Z.'1§91.f';:3O08
IN CRIMINA; 

BETWEEN;      ' «V

Annappa Ij*«1a.nja1:pa"MOgcf' ~--. __ ~
S/0. M3nja3_3pa.M0ge:   
Aged about 50 yézu*.§',. {I)<":é':----
Sr. Managei', Cssznaifa Bafilé
C.N4.;RG-cgfl, Bm'm;-11': ' Badravathi

 '~  _ Shi;i1ogaA D.i,stx1'ct[ ' ---------- ~ *  Petitioner

 '  L'    Hgégde, Advocate)

Lg CRiMii\§A§,V,.§5VETITION No.7' 108112008

 BE"I*vIII3"'i3._I_~;; 4'

» VéI$11§1eIvTinamayya Moger
'  S,'.o_.I Timmayya Moger

Aged about 36 years

VA    .1.')<:: _ 'V  . _

Aged abmli 46 year$,..GcciT'TASé1%iice

Oficer,  Ban1"«:,A'Chamfi:éLvar Branch

HonnavarTa1_uk _ ._ 

Uttarrx  ADi'si:ric'i'. ... Petitioner

" V"  --{3y'' '3}; flggde, kfiédcate)

 .15: ,cié§a)I:1§A:.?' 9§:f1.*1T1oN 910.7193/2003

_mWBE?WEE£:     

  Maiijunath
"  S,' 0... Amiappa Mogcr
 V"-Aged 'about 28 yeam
  raga; 'Lakshmi Niiaya, Bclke
  V' Tailuk: Bhatkal, Uttara Kannada. ...Petii_ioJ:1<:r

 (By Sn". R1}. Hegde, Advocate)



IN CRIMINAL PETYFION N0.7194/2(}(58
BETWEEN:

Smt. Seeta Masti Me-ger

D/0. Masti Moger

Aged about 32 years, Occ: Service 
Cierk, Canara Bank '

Venkatapur Branch, Bhatkal V 2   ~ ~  
Ufiara Kannada Distzict.     }§c:.ti;ioner

(By Sri R.G.Hegde, Advocate}

AND:

The State oi'4Ka1*neitTai<J_ab  

By P.S.I., Civil  _ 

and Enforcement  Mafi-gaioiié,""'

Dakshgina Kafiiiagia.   . j ...Respondent is common
 " ' '    " in all the Pfititions

(By Sri 19.*.<hVVi'ndi;e.He;:'P)

~   A' Petition N<3s.'?' 107/ 2008 to 7 1 33/ 2008,

2G'i;38 719472008 are filed under section 482

.C3r'.;??.{_l.__V 'prayieg to call for entire records in Splcase

__N'oV.e_13;2oo8v,':3p'jJ::ase No.13/2008, c;:1.M1sc.No.151/2008,

Spl". « "_'I_\I(_3.15/2008, Splflase No, 10] 2008, Splflase
No'. 16/ 2(){)8", SpI.Case No. 19/ 2008, SpL Case No. 12/ 12008
(C.rL1'v£ise.ANc."143/2008) and Spl. Case N0. 14/ 2008

 'c:eedings 85 etc.

These pefifiens coming on for admission this éay, the

  ..Ca5urt made the following:

 



:5:
ORDER

In all ihese pefitions, pefitioners are proseeiited.e’_~fe::V’e’e;;;{‘:”« _

ofience punishable under section 3(})(ix) o_f~

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (pmaggntiofi ;.oi’eeeA£1joc§ees)_e _lAc:,l:’

3.989. The investigafion ‘km.

ihe basis of complaint lodged Depety TSti:1)€Zl;i§1iCI1dCI1lZ
of Police, Civil Rights ll
It is stated in the the year 1988-

89, petitioners’ Xjflio tol:”‘l’jI%*lQg§:l§.%eera” community

obtained fal_ee’lee.s1;e:’«ee1*tl1ieates _’ to Show that they belong to
“Mogex” “i;-ésa Scheduled Caste and joined

sewiees; Lin V;31′,i0lIS’: éeparwents anti they were also given

. l)oiiedVVl’;}mmeii’eiiS and all service benefits. The Deputy

e_s’:;_§e:i:§.;:e;§ci«:é’;;.t,§:1′ Police, em Rights Enforcement Cell, after

11O”£iei:1gVtl1ef..–;}e£:£tioners have obtained false caste certificates

ofiflie ‘basis of false caste certificates petitioners joineé

“_:se1j§vHi£:es, lodged a complaint. The Ixzvestigating Officer

‘ sfzbmitted chargesheet against petitioners for an offence

punishable under seetien 3(i)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes 6:,

Scheduled Tlibes {PI’€Vfliiti{)I1 of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the

wlwa

ground that petitioners by obtaining false caste certificates
have depriveé candidates of Scheduled Castes 8:. Selieriuled

Tribes of the posts reserved for them.

2. E have heard the iearxied fat”

the learned HCGP for State.

3. The learned Counsel submit

that caste certificates petitie.1ie~xe {iii they

are cancelled or withdrawn 1_;11%ii_er:ti:3–e.Vi*e§i..if;*e:;:::at provisions of

the K;31naié;3{§’vVS¢§xedu]ledVV___Castes, Scheduled Tribes zamd
Other “{_§eeervation of Appointments, Etc.)

Rules,” {ferisiiortg ‘the Rulee’) and also in terms of the

t, jA1;’a’g£:;¢§;=t oifethe sefigéeme Court, reported in AIR 199:5 SC 94

Madhurzl Pati} and another Vs. Addl.

Tribai Develogment and others).

A’ ‘ The learned HCGP fer State would submit there was

:;,¢; for the Investigating Oficer to pmeeed against

” ‘peeeoners under seetioza 3(1)(ix) ef the Scheduled Castes av,

Seheéuleé T ribes {Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. at
.=».£3″””‘&” M’
IV C

1?:

5. In order to appxtciatc the above submi$§£ol:1s-,:”L:’i1’E3

neccssaxy to state caste certificates obtained

have not been cancelled, withdraw}: ‘o’r’~s.nni111ea_cvi”

I’Cl€V:”31’i{ provisions of Scheduled ._

Classes (Reservation ofAppoil:1t§ie:;ts, AEf<_:_.

also in terms ofjudgmcol of C",oz'1r4:,A rgfinorted in
AIR 1995 so 94 (in c.fa.–sc'*of':'.§§voff1o;fi;VlvIa:1hufl Patti} and
another Vs. Aclcli. lllcvclopment and
others). A$ * obtained. by
petitioigersg concclled or azmullcd, they
are vam; _ l T l

5 ca _'I'hc.V $chedulcd castes, Scheduled Tribes

. Vl3-3_ckwol{l"lC1asses (Reservation of Appointmems,

WSIB framed in order to cancel, Withdraw

or certificates obtained by practicing fraud. The

pmccfiizfis for cancellation, Withdrawal or annulment of caste

are containeé under Kalnataka Scheduler}

V' Castes, Schcdnicd Tribes and Omar Backwaitl Classes

(Reservation of Appoifittxlents, Etc.) Rules, 1992 (for short,

N' 5Vo.–9&6'"':

)V R§1;¢s;:..;:k:;92’and * L’

:8:

‘the Rules’). Rule 7~A of the said Rules p;’bv*i:i’¢.:.§__i

presecution for obtaixling false caste csriificatfs… V

*7. Rule 7«~A of Karnataka Sch;é:du’i¥:_?d” t3a;§§te_§§’,
‘Tribes and Other VC1aS.Se$_ of
Appozizltments, Etc.) Ruies, 199%2,’3§eads_»:hu$:;~

“‘7-A. Prosécfiidr; {.fqr” false
caste ce1t_i_ficai:e_..-:-._ (1) ‘:f11;:_ C’3ste~V..’j?.?éIification

–the;:__Cas*.§2′ Verification

Co}3:11:.13}ift:c:,£~–V. ‘V V” ‘case 5ma_},r be ané the

Qivisioliatd ‘si;1éLI} send a copy of
fie of the applicant for ‘
g;t’£aj2t <)f or, as the case may
1;)c, a4 c'o;_;:$y éiiier in appeal rejecting such
td «Lh__r:.« Bixectarate of Civii Rights
A Eflqmément.

Q ,’ {.2;.. %.i~«The Directorate of Civil Rights
Ezgyfbfiégziiient shall take steps tn prosecute such
who has obtained a false Caste

n Cfftificate.”

8. Thus, we find the {firectoraie of Civil Rights

” “”‘I?§§:1£orcemcnt Ceii should take steps to prosecute those who

had obtained false caste certificates. Such steps shoulci be

taken oniy after Caste Veztificatrimz Committee or Caste or

W} C, gM_m,¢1_”

:9:

Income Verification Committee and the _;””Bi${is.i_c£H__~_i_i

Commissioner sends a copy of the order in i*ejecting”

such claim to the Directorate of “i

C61}.

in the case on hacd, the-:caste»,VceItificsttes_t3s.sued to
petitioners have not or annulled.

The Directorate’ could take
steps to found by the Caste
Verific_at:icn'” fiertifzcates cbtained by

petiticirters ‘are Vfi:21:”e.i ‘ t _ é t ‘

,9. t’*;*:~;j;s in Cr1.P.No.2028/2004 dated

Whfie”‘dea}mg with a similar situation has heid

‘Vth_eite. caste certificate is Withdrawn or axmulled or

cetficeiied Caste Verification Committee, it cannot be

termeciicgsv false caste certificate. This Court while quashing

2 » ntit1e_ cc§32p1ai11t against petitioner therein has directed to

‘”‘–:1:$§7cceed against iaetitioner therein if Caste Certificate issueé

“to him is withdrawn by the Caste Verification Committee.

‘?

3″”

um 6′

:30:

19. This Court while dealing with a

W.P.No.20758/2005{GM–CC) dated .:22..91,20Q8;’ 1:{e*1§1:–.~_ t
“6. However, fiav1»*=;1g.. ; At
aspect of the matter, the a_pp:ehe_:osio1;: t
by the learned senior fot the
petitioner is that the whoLAha§e”;proAd;g::ed
such faise ce1tifi<:e3.'LeA ';3701;ft}(1:. " soot~free also
requires to be notioes1V with the
matter. :..1*s_~.": the order
dated :5 1 :Ti;§2¢)0o'j_pe;;ss;ed 19006] 1999
would, 2 has noticed this
;e.speet" has come to a
oonelusioti 't1:1jev._.'e1.11§31oyer has any doubt
to Certificate produced by
the fieiitioner, 'the employer would have to
V <:;o.'a::p§ain tofiievauthoxity which has issued the
V' " 1 seeking wéihdrawai or for cancellation
« certificate issued in favour of the

peisoa concerned… ."

AA It: the instant cases, caste certificates obtained by

flpetittioners are neither cancelled nor withdrawn. The caste

V’ H certificates are valid til} they are declares}. as faise by the

Caste Verification Committee. It is needieso to state such
N E 4-3-vv~€L2/v

:11:

tieclamfion shafl be precedztd by an enquiry as

uncier the Rulas.

1 1. It is also» necessary to

gamvisicxns of Scheduled

(Prevention cf Atxrocities). Act, ‘ID,’ the %i§m>ve:.vv§etiti0ns,
except petitioners in cm».Nqs;::’;;9s,e:;¢¢;a,% 7110/2008 &,
“F109/2008, othzzi’ v_petifi6fieéé¥ a.g~e.’j’VLa;1_1e’g’ec§.” “fig; have obtaineé

false castc__ fiizzigxg ‘yééé 1988-89. At this

junctuaffia ifiat Scheduled Castes 31261
the Sclfieduicfii (Pfévfiafion of Atmcities) Act, 1989

cam. _i11%:c> ‘fQfce_’;.f;§i£££ “”..30.O1.1990. Thus, except the

:5; crifP;”””;~:¢:;.7193/2003, C1r1.P.No.’?’1 10/2903 51;

1’%c::g:§_§’r;:\:§:.;f’:d¢;«>g 2{}03, the petitioners in other petitions had

false caste certificates when section 3(1)(ix)

__<3f Scheziiiled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

A "ii Act, 1989 was not ix; farce. It is needless 1:0 state

' thgat sccfion 3(1)(ix) of Scheduied Castes and the Schcduied

.4 Tzibes (Prevention of Atrcciticics} Act, 1989 has no

rseiavspcctive efihct. The law is fairly Wei} settied that a

person cazmot he pmsecutcci for an act, whic:l:; is not an

N A WA"

:12:

ofibnce at the time of commission of V-

Invesfigating Oficer has not oonsid¢:zed.__1;his; ‘V?hc ” ”

Court has also not considered this ‘iv

$2. In View of the abOV€ (ii§i{;uSSif)fl, f Ath€:..QVpii1ioh –, *

that petitioners can,not;__be qipass the
follawingz V a j ‘ V A. §
_ :»wbRDEgU: ‘V

The pmceedings

are qu’;:§11Ve:;1V_. .:€h@ ‘Di1f§££firatc of Civil Rights

EnforC”::mcIztAAV.VMVli’a:1§-:r*.}z _’ ‘to prosecute the petitioners
after théi1_’ (3aste_ am withdrawn, cancelled or

‘i;1*.1§:’ cémfietént authority under the Karaataka

% sgh.-§d:};i;¢a ‘Castes,vH”S€§hedu}cd Tribes and Other Baclswvard

ofAppoi31m”:c3:1ts, Etc.) Ruies, 1992 311$

judment of Supreme Court, reported in AIR’

A1995′ 94 (in the case of Kumari Madhuri pm; and

a.r;o§;f§1cr Vs’ Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Sevciopmtznt and

Sd/5

SNN Tudég

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *