V. ._BAN:;;a;I.Qg§; ..... V'
..,(::sfgf"s;a:""sATHIsH R GIRJI, ADv.,;
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKR RT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17"' DRY OF NOVEMBER 2008
BEFQRE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE A s 9AcHHA.91:}g=i:'__'_L-"',;~
CRIMINAL REVESION PETITION No.57Q_'?t>-E§_ '
BETWEEN:
M MOHAN
s/0 MUNISWAMY
48 YEARS
NO 224, BASHYAMNAGAR.~_
SRIRAMPURA ' .,
BANGALORE _
PETITIONER
(BY sRI.~vs"$;§ANK§ARAP§fi\ 'aw ADVS.,)
STATE BY' vuLs0oR'w« _
GATE 9oLIcE..sT.n:I'3t.oN~--. ' '
REP. 531* _s. 9. _ _H'1'c-:1»; 'BLDG,
m RESPONDENT
I§Ii.5:1:> 11/8 397 RM 401 CR.P.C. 3*: Tax:
ADVQCA'I'E.. ma ma PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
_ HoN*'2L1«:gcr3URT MAY BE PLBASED TO SET ASIDE THE
V.JUDGMENVT':.OE' comvzcrrzon Am') SENTENCE DT. 14.5.99
vv.'---_p;2-3.32:1) BY THE C.M.M., BRNGALORE, IN c.c.
_ '~.1<:Q.2'e21/90. AND THE JUDGMENT or CONVICTION AND
sx-;Nt{*EN<:E. 13:'. 8.3.04 9355213 B1' was 9.0., FAST
TRACK (saasszousy couar-:12, BANGALORE, IN
.£2RL.A.NO.145/99 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER.
Crl.RP being heard and reserved for orders,
this day the Court pronounced the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has preferred this revision
challenging his conviction and sentence for_..___the
offence punishable {Use 198, 419, 420 of
trial held by the Chief Metropolitan
Bangalore confirmed in
Fast Track Court, Bangalore it i it
2. The facts releveht forbthe of
this revision are as underr°iK V l V R
The petitioner béfége the
trial Court. It is all_e.-yeti accused, a
person:’.._Abelc>ngjir-£3-.Alto’4″i’rsia’i–du’ community, obtained a
czertificate “from tlhecillfiehsildar, Bangalore north
as belonging lAdi- Dravida caste for securing a
the government. He submitted an
I 13.7.1978 for the post of the
Security~~Guu..aArd in the ITI company, wherein the
3”-w___V’posts “we_re to be filled up in accordance with the
“r_eVse’riA’atic»n. It is alleged that though the
ix”..__fi”‘acl€;used belonged to Naidu community, obtained a
uflcertificate to the effect that he belonged to
Adiwfiravida and as there was a post reserved for
K
On appreciation of the material on record,
the trial Court convicted the accused for. the
above said offences and sentenced him té undergo _
imprisonment for two years for each. ef _thefi_”
offences and ordered the” Sentence =rto;_ runj
concurrently. Aggrievedp by dthe, conuictidn Band >,
sentence the accused preferred “Crl;A.e fiegléd/99
and the Fast Track .Court’»Qhichfl diemissed the
appeal on merits *§¢nf:;nin§7ftfie_ conviction.
Aggrieved by_p the wicencnrrenthihfindings of
conviction the Lpetitienerw fie; “approached this
Court in ré?i§i§fif€.'”‘ M ‘i d ‘
3. ll hate Theard “the ‘learned counsel for
the petitioner and faigg lthe learned Govt.,
Pleader.:’* n V l i T
-=t_4f;f”Thgjv,poi§£§i that arise for my
considerationparerb
r,_ (1) “_Whether the judgement of the
” * trial Court convicting the
petitioner for the offence
punishable U/S 198, 419, 420 IPC
and the sentence thereon
confirmed in Crl.Appeal is
illegal and perverse?
(2) What order? ggdgw
5. It is the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that there is no
evidence that the certificate given by hinV is
either forged or false and that the;enii§ufnou&
question of cheating. In the circumstanoea;ihef’i-
submits that the conviction and sentence ereereofi
by the Courts below are illegal and perver3e.”i
6. Learned Govt.F,}Bieaae: ‘aubmite” that ii
there are concurrent finfiinga_ ana- that the
petitioner has not mean out anf ground to warrant
interference. ;_ ,x”v.”iV
7, …. uagg;”c5¢iq xnei eeenwifrom the evidence,
PW.1 is *the Vnenagéri who was working in the
factory ana*ne”;é¢a1q§a the letter » Ex.P.1 from
one §Nateshan;,ietating that accused does not
in, helongEto_Seheduled Caste community and that he
Ain’9aoApereonjwbelonging to Naidu community and
reeuested i§W.1 to make an enquiry and to take
Z”*_ appropriate action, as the certificate produced
V”«. fly _the accused as belonging to Adi–Karnataka
i”aiicante is a false certificate. He verified and
ijfound that accused had given such a certificate
and thereafter he submitted a report to the’
Deputy Inspector General of police under Ex.P.3.
is/\t
the caste of the accused has been shown as Hlndu
— Naidu. So, the perusal of the dooueeata
referred to above and Exs.P.24, 25 and éé §§§aa: I
that the accused belongs to Nalou commue£ty{: So; ”
thereafter he looked into 3*’-‘;:..ts>,.f7o_’.nfiv in’:’.y&h14¢:i~:g._;r;;;rT
caste has been shown as ,a person beloaoahgg to °
Adi~Bravida i.e., Scheduled: caste =oomeuolty- and
after collecting all;_theaet:oocamentaFh eroduced
them before the police oarihorthe”lgrestigation.
9. pw,4 la the eetiréo teacher, Sevashrama
High schooflissued Ex.P.1′?, the
admission ehtract, ih=ehlch it was revealed that
the aoouaed zéaidu community and he
also speak; about the oroduction of Ex.P.l4, 15
_V and j17u.to VPfl;3. : P.5 is also the retired
;?V teacher}: Qherein he states that when he was
‘Aw«.§rk’:;igV-:”:’as;’_ af.~:teacher in Sevashrama high school
the vfioiice ‘have showed him the extract of the
1h”ahadiasioa register of the school and the register
h«.”revealed that the accused belongs to Naidu
‘”»fifcommunity. The extract has been produced at
‘tvEx.P.19. PW.6 is the ASI, who registered the
complaint in Crime No.22i88 and sent the saié
complaint – Ex.P.20 to the Magistrate along with
0/more
9
FIR. Furthermore, PW.7 is the retired Dy.5.P who
has recorded the statement of these witnesses.
10. From this evidence the prosecution
intends to establish that the accused ‘has
committed an offence UfS 198, 419 and 42% ef the .
IPC. It is relevant to note that in the transfers
certificate at Ex.P.22, the religion, o§,itheh
accused has been shown as Hindus and ;;n- colnmni’
No.9 as to whether the candidate belongs to SC or
ST, the blank is filled in mentioning as ‘haidu’.
The cumulative record *” .fi§iP.i3″ has also been
produced which’ reveél” that ,the lceste of the
accused. has. heeniishcyfi~ as Hindu (A.D) to mean
Adi–Dravida.t_ i’_fin,P;§~’ is the copy of the
app3,i}:cstAion “f’i_vi:ed for the post in which the
;V_ accnsed has stated that he belongs to Adi–Dravida
Acaste.~ Eg.§L5 is the caste certificate which is
it” siened by the Tahsildar, Bangalore North taluk,
3″”g in which it is certified that the accused beiongs
i’» to Adi–Dravida caste. Ex.?.6 is the form which
‘°»fifa1so contains the caste as Adi-Dravida and Ex.P.7
i=is the affidavit sworn by the accused stating
that he belongs to Adi*Dravida M SC community.§%i:\
I1
signature said to have been forged. If a charge
of forgery has to be proved, it is necessary for
the investigating agency or the prosecutionf1teW.
prove the diesimilarities in the _ei§netere_ by5_f*
examining the expert and by eeneing the a§¢gm§fig$§
to the opinion of the expert}: inc §§g§;.effi§:%”
has been made at all to :§rove ‘theta the hcaete
certificate does net_ beer ‘the “signatnre~ of the
Tahsildar. The reiiance;_en’ the} letter of the
Tahsildar and ithe :fiepfi§yfVC§m@iseiener, without
examining ,~th¢e f iehf’comfiIetei§$ illegal and
imProPeFfl.fyficK i iii if: V
12¢ _r§££he£eo:e{i~_when the prosecution
claims that the “eaefieg certificate is forged or
fal3e;”it is necessary to examine the concerned
iTaheiidar’ who ieened the certificate. It is
ireleeantzto mete that whenever a certificate has
to he issned by any person, who is authorised in
f*»,*law td_iesue, he has to make verification and an
7enqeiry and thereafter has to issue the
f=_f°certificate. Leave apart that with regard to the
u”.enquiry or verification the prosecution has not
at all examined the Tahsildar who says that his
signature has been forged. In the circumstances,
K2
the perusal of the evidence at PWs.1 to 33 does
not reveal anything as regards the fdrged
signatures.
13. New coming to the questi&§ ga?llt5lu
whether the accused has. ~given tiara false,
certificate, he states that thefi belongs’ toiafidiée.
Dravida community and itfig Cufiul3tiVee”recerd =l
produced at Ex.P.18, in the ceiuen efsrelieion at
page 2 of the said abeueentg it is stated Hindu
(AD). Though, it is,statee ey tee witnesses that
the word ‘Afl’ is net efitgefi ty them, that much
of material rtséif is iesuffieient to prove that
there is an ih$erti6n;~_’Furthermore, Ex.fl.1 and
D.2 are the=doéument§”preduced by the accused and
perusal_ef these deeuments reveal that Ex.D.1 is
it flthe egfigegt pf the register of birth during the
imenth’of2Sefitember 1954. The name of the father
of the acefised has been written as Nmniswamy and
i*u_*the name of the mother has been written as
“hajaeea. In the column regarding the caste, it
i*rliis;mentioned as ‘AD’ to mean Adi-Dravida. Ex.D.2
i*.:s the certificate issued by the Administrative
officer of the Gram panchayath, wherein it is
stated that the father of the accused as
K
B
Muniswamy and mother as Thayamma, who are the
persons belonging to Scheduled caste community.
The comparison of £33. B1 and D2 reveaia:hthe~u
change in the name of the mother of the accnaedifl
Ex.D.1, contains the name gaf~.th§”fl§§{5§goja5_
Rajamma. Ex.B.2 containa the nape as §ha§aa§a;t
On the basis of this itseif, ithevgtriai”*Cohrt
rejected the version of the accused. ..in
14. It is relevant to note that the accused
states that his father ehiieradnitting him to the
school to _o§er§5¢ei the Vhneiiiation stated the
caste as €fNai§n5K’enaf there} is no reason to
disbelieeeiAthiggiaitferenoeiwalso. The documents
issued ty the ecncationat authorities are not the
documents to raiée Conclusive proof of caste of a
h’aperaoh.,: The V investigating agency has not
“,ap§:eacnéa the authorities concerned who make the
entries Aof: birth and death to find out as to
‘ whether ,the accused belongs to Scheduled caste
xtigcommanity or Naidu community. In the absence of
_j,anye such investigation, the mere production of
~ ‘the documents and getting them marked itself is
” not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.
some of the documents produced by the school
56..
35
O R D E R
Petition is allowed. Conviction, of “fhéfi
petitioner few the offence punishab1é :U[S i98fi
R/W 193, 419 and 429 IPC :aé”*exge;e¢ fin tci.d=
NO.2621/90 and confirmed in c£1.7§;JN6;i45/99gf:$
set aside. The accused ig acquitted bf tfié*séid ?
charges. The bail bands exécuted by the ficcused
are cancelled.
ENS.
