ORDER
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. Petitioner is challenging the validity of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as unconstitutional. He is also seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 First Information Report submitted before the Special Judge for SC/ST Cases (Sessions Court), Manjeri.
2. The allegation in Ext.P2 is “petitioner has assaulted, one Ramachandran who belongs to Scheduled Castes community of Kallady by calling his caste name at a public place”. Petitioner denied the said incident. According to petitioner he has no connection with the fourth respondent, and he is totally a stranger to the petitioner. According to petitioner, he is not aware of his caste. His case is that a false complaint is lodged against him at the instigation of one Radhakrishnan to wreck vengeance on the petitioner for taking effective steps to prevent encroachment into the property which is put in the possession of receivers appointed by Court. It is seen for quashing criminal proceedings, petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing Crl.M.C. No. 1563 of 1996. However, the said case was withdrawn by the petitioner. Petitioner has now invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the said complaint and also seeking a declaration that Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is unconstitutional. According to counsel for the petitioner, adequate safeguards are not provided in the said Act. Counsel submitted Section 3 of the Act violates Articles 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
3. I have gone through the various provisions of the Act. Petitioner could not establish how and in what manner Articles 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India are violated by the provisions of the Act. The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, to provide for special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act was enacted in line with various constitutional provisions giving special privileges and rights to members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Article 17 of the Constitution of India provides that untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of untouchability shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. Article 17 makes the practice of untouchability an offence read with Article 35(a)(ii) which confers upon the Parliament the exclusive power to make law prescribing punishment for those acts which are declared to be offences under Part III of the Constitution. Article 17 is a significant provision particularly from the point of view of equality of law. It guarantees social justice and dignity of life which were denied to vast section of the society for centuries.
4. It is in the wake of above mentioned constitutional provisions that Parliament has enacted the Act, which is an Act to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Therefore 1 do not find any legal infirmity in Section 3(1)(x) of the Act to hold that the same is oppressive and unconstitutional. I therefore declare that the said provision is legal and valid. Therefore the challenge of the petitioner against Ext.P2 will not stand. I am of the view that petitioner has to work out his remedies in the criminal Court. Question as to whether the contentions raised in Ext.P2 would constitute an offence under the Act is a matter to be considered by the criminal Court on evidence. Appreciation of documents, affidavits and evidence are not within the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As held by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 2160 : (1991 Cri LJ 1438), appreciation of evidence is a function of the criminal Court, and Judge who seized of the matter. Therefore I find that the above mentioned legal principle is applicable to the instant case. However, the observation made in this judgment will not come in the way of the criminal Court in considering question whether any offence under Section 3(1 )(x) of the Act has been committed by the petitioner.
For the above reasons, original petition is dismissed.