Obtaining Of False Caste Certificate By Non-SC Persons Not Offence Under Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act : Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that if persons not belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe obtains a false caste certificate, they cannot be prosecuted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. A single judge bench of Sreenivas Harish Kumar, while discharging two accused Yamuna and Vijaya,said "If...
The Karnataka High Court has held that if persons not belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe obtains a false caste certificate, they cannot be prosecuted under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
A single judge bench of Sreenivas Harish Kumar, while discharging two accused Yamuna and Vijaya,said "If a false caste certificate is obtained by persons not belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe by giving wrong information, it does not mean that a public servant is induced to take action against a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe."
It added "The said provision cannot be invoked in the charge sheet even if it is assumed for the argument's sake that certificates are obtained by giving false information. In this view filing of charge sheet against the petitioners was unwarranted."
Case Background:
The petitioners were prosecuted for the said offence on the allegation that they produced false caste certificates to show that they belonged to Marathi caste which comes under Scheduled Tribe category.
A chargesheet was filed for the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The petitioners filed applications under section 227 Cr.P.C seeking their discharge. The court below by its order dated 22.8.2012 dismissed their applications and hence these revision petitions.
Petitioners Arguments
Advocate Nataraj Ballal and Advocate Suyog Herele for the petitioners submitted that the caste certificates were issued in the years 1977 and 1983. When these caste certificates were issued, the Act was not in existence, it was enacted in the year 1989. Thus it was not an offence at the time when the caste certificates were issued.
Secondly it was contended that assuming that the certificates are falsely obtained by the petitioners, the provisions of section 3(1)(ix) of the Act are not attracted. It was said "There is nothing to show that by giving false information to a public servant, the petitioners intended to induce that public servant to cause annoyance to a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe."
Prosecution Opposed the plea
Advocate Vishwa Murthy said "It is said by the Trial court that at the time of framing charge, only materials available on record should be considered to find out whether there is a case for framing of charge or not. It is not necessary for the court to consider whether the accused is going to be convicted or not and such a conclusion can be drawn only after holding trial.
Further, the trial court has referred to some of the authorities that the petitioners have now relied upon for dismissing their applications under section 227 of Cr.P.C. There are no infirmities in the order.
Court findings:
Firstly the court noted "There is no dispute that these caste certificates were issued in 1977 and 1983. Therefore it becomes very clear that when the caste certificates were issued, the Act had not been enacted at all, it came into force from 30.1.1990."
Referring to Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India which reads thus "
No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.
The court said "Petitioners have been chargesheeted for the offence under section 3(1)(ix) of the Act. In view of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, they cannot be prosecuted for the offence under section 3(1)(ix) of the Act as the law did not exist on the day when the certificates were issued."
Further, the court clarified that the trial court at the time of framing charges must examine whether any offence is made out from the charge sheet or not. When an application under section 227 Cr.P.C, is made, the trial Court has all the powers to discharge an accused if the chargesheet does not indicate any offence being committed. Even at the time of framing charge, the trial court has ample power to examine whether the offence has been constituted or not, and if no offence is forthcoming from the charge sheet, the jurisdiction under section 227 Cr.P.C can be exercised for discharging the accused.
It then opined "In this case, apparently the trial court has not exercised jurisdiction under section 227 of Cr.P.C under an erroneous impression that only the High Court can quash the charge sheet. Indeed the High Court can quash the charge sheet, and at the same time if discharge is sought under Section 227 of Cr.P.C, the Sessions Court or the Special Court can discharge an accused if no offence is constituted."
Accordingly, it allowed the petitions and discharged the accused.
Case Title: Yamuna And The State
Case No: Crl.RP.No.989/2012
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 24
Date of Order: January 11, 2022
Appearance: Advocate Nataraj Ballal and Advocate Suyog Herele a/w Advocate Aruna Shyam for petitioner.
Advocate Vishwa Murthy for respondent