[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
Yelahanka Ps vs Ramanaiah on 13 May, 2025
KABC010014752021
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY (CCH-71)
Dated this the 13th day of May, 2025.
Present;
Sri. Rajesh Karnam.K, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.,
LXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.Case.No.45/2021
COMPLAINANT: STATE
Represented by
Yelahanka Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep.by Special Public Prosecutor).
-V/s-
ACCUSED : Ramanaiah,
S/o.Venkatakrishnaiah,
Aged about 78 years,
R/at No.53, 4th Block,
89th Cross,
Chandanappa Layout,
Rama Chandrapuram,
Bengaluru.
Reptd. by Sri. NV., Advocate)
1. Date of commission of : 11.02.1974 to
offence 18.01.2019
2
Spl.C.45/2021
2. Date of report of Offence 09.02.2019
3. Name of the Complainant : Sri.Srinivas.T.R.
4. Date of commencement of : 11.07.2024
recording of evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence : 29.03.2025
6. Offences Complained are : U/s.196, 198, 420 of IPC
& Sec.3(1) (q) of
SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Charges not proved
JUDGMENT
This case is registered as per the charge
sheet submitted by ACP Yelahanka Sub Division
against accused for the offence punishable under
Section U/sec.196, 198, 420 of IPC & Sec.3(1) (q)
of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, the
accused on 11.02.1974 has made representation
before the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North, and
obtained caste certificates as Adi Andhra and
obtained employment in BEL as on 16.07.1974,
as ‘D’ group employee and discharged his duty
3
Spl.C.45/2021
and got superannuated, accordingly as he has
obtained promotion as a schedule caste person,
by playing fraud on the caste certificate issuing
authority as such committed offence punishable
u/s. 196, 198, 420 of IPC, accordingly as per the
orders of ADGP, DCRE, to the complainant to
lodge complaint before the jurisdictional police.
Accordingly, on the basis of the written
complaint, Investigating Officer took up
investigation and filed charge sheet.
3. The prosecution at trial got examined PWs-1
to 6 and got exhibited Ex.P.1 to 18. The
statement of the accused u/sec 313 of Cr.PC
recorded, read over and explained to the accused
in vernacular language and the accused, denied
all the incriminating evidence and he did not
choose to lead defence evidence on his behalf.
4. Heard the arguments and perused the
materials available on record.
4
Spl.C.45/2021
5. The following points would arise for the
determination of this Court are as follows;
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that within the
Yelahanka police station, on 11.02.1974
accused received false certificate that he
belonging to Adi Andhra caste from
Tahsildar, Bengaluru North and on
16.07.1974 got job in BEL as D Group
employee, and avoided SC/ST people not
to get job and acted that he is belonging to
Adi Andhra caste and thereby cheated the
Government and thereby committed
offence punishable u/s 198, 196 of IPC ?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid
date, time and place accused prepared
false certificate that he belonging to Adi
Andhra caste and on 11.02.1974 took
false certificate from Tahsildar, Bengaluru
North Taluk and got the post of D group
in BEL and acted that he is belonging to
Adi Andhra caste and thereby cheated the
Government and thereby committed
offence punishable u/s 420 of IPC ?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that accused got the
post of D group in BEL on 16.07.1974,
gave false information that accused
5
Spl.C.45/2021
belonging to Adi Andhra caste and got
false certificate from Tahsildar, Bengaluru
North on 11.02.1974 and cheated the
Government and thereby committed
offence punishable u/s 3(1)(q) of SC/ST
(POA) Act 1989 ?
4. What Order?
6. My findings to the above points are as follows;
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: In the Negative;
Point No.3: In the Negative
Point No.4: As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1: The prosecution to prove the
ingredients of offence punishable u/s.196 and 198 of
IPC basically relies on the evidence of P.W.1 Ravindra,
the P.W.2 Ratnakala who are the Principals of the
Institution where they have issued certified copy of the
school Marks-card and school admission register
extracts concerning one V.Padmavathi who is none
6
Spl.C.45/2021
other than the daughter of the accused. The P.W.3
Jaikumar.K.M. is the Assistant Manager where
accused was working who had handed over the
documents concerning work of the accused. The P.W.4
Srinivas is the ASI who registered crime and P.W.5
Dayananda is the Deputy Commissioner who passed
orders as per the Karnataka Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes
(Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 and
passed order cancelling the caste certificate issued to
the accused as on 11.02.1974. The P.W.6 Pradeep
Kumar is the Investigating Officer who was working as
Police Inspector as on the date of 21.02.2019 who had
received information from the S.P., DCRE and handed
over the same to the Deputy Commissioner for taking
necessary action in accordance with law. Further this
witness deposes of visiting the native of the accused
and conducting Mahazar as per Ex.P.10 and recorded
statements of PWs.5 to 8 and he had collected school
7
Spl.C.45/2021
documents and handed over further investigation to
C.W.14. This witness denies suggestions made by the
learned counsel for the accused.
8. The learned SPP argues as per the material
placed on record, the daughter of the accused has
been admitted to school as V.Padmavathi, daughter of
V.Sriramulu and belonging to ‘Hindu Naidu’ caste,
however accused represented as Adi Andhra. Therefore
the documents placed by the school records directly
points to the accused for misrepresenting himself
belonging to Harijan caste Adi Andhra and obtained
job in BEL.
9. The learned counsel for the accused submits in
the case on hand, actually no any school records of the
accused are being collected by the Investigating
Officer. The documents pertaining to V.Padmavathi
does not makes difference since the relationship
between Sriramulu and the accused is to be
established at the first instance. In fact the Human
8
Spl.C.45/2021
Resources Officer who has issued caste report of the
accused as per Ex.P.18 as on 10.04.2019 it has been
mentioned as schedule caste Harijan and Adi Andhra.
However in the further documents, in the Appendix
Attestation Form of accused mentioned only as Hindu
Harijan. Therefore the allegation made by the
prosecution and the documents placed has no any co-
relation. There is no any material in the present case
as accused never used any caste certificate as Adi
Andhra and obtained any job. Moreover, as per the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments,
etc.) Act, 1990, it has come into effect only after the
year 1990, which cannot be applied to any cases prior
to coming within the ambit of the Act, but has not
come to force retrospectively. Therefore the order
passed by P.W.5 Dayananda has no relavnce to the
present case, since accused was not at all employed on
that day of present act, seems reasonable prayer.
9
Spl.C.45/2021
10. This court on going through the citation of K.
Nirmala vs Canara Bank on 28 August, 2024 in CIVIL
APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024 (Arising out of
SLP(Civil) No(s). 13484-13488 of 2019), wherein it is
held that:
“7. A Constitution Bench of this Court in
State of Maharashtra v. Milind and
Others1, held that the State Government
has no authority to amend or modify the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes list
published under Articles 341 and 342 of
the Constitution of India. A caste can only
be classified as a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe or a Socially and
Educationally Backward Caste when the
Presidential Order is issued to that effect in
exercise of the powers prescribed under
Articles 341, 342, and 342A of the
Constitution of India respectively. In
Milind(supra), this Court held as below: –
“15. Thus, it is clear that States have no
power to amend Presidential Orders.
Consequently, a party in power or the
Government of the day in a State is relieved
from the pressure or burden of tinkering
with the Presidential Orders either to gain
popularity or secure votes. Number of
persons in order to gain advantage in
securing admissions in educational
institutions and employment in State
services have been claiming as belonging to
either Scheduled Castes or Scheduled
10Spl.C.45/2021
Tribes depriving genuine and needy persons
belonging to Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes covered by the
Presidential Orders, defeating and
frustrating to a large extent the very object
of protective discrimination given to such
people based on their educational and
social backwardness. Courts cannot and
should not expand jurisdiction to deal with
the question as to whether a particular
caste, sub-caste; or part of tribe or sub-
tribe is included in any one of the entries
mentioned in the Presidential Orders issued
under Articles 341 and 342 particularly so
when in clause (2) of the said article, it is
expressly stated that the said Orders
cannot be amended or varied except by law
made by Parliament. The power to include
or exclude, amend or alter Presidential
Order is expressly and exclusively conferred
on and vested with Parliament and that too
by making a law in that regard.
The President had the benefit of consulting
the States through Governors of States
which had the means and machinery to
find out and recommend as to whether a
particular caste or tribe was to be included
in the Presidential Order. If the said Orders
are to be amended, it is Parliament that is
in a better position to know having the
means and machinery unlike courts as to
why a particular caste or tribe is to be
included or excluded by law to be made by
Parliament. Allowing the State
Governments or courts or other authorities
or Tribunals to hold inquiry as to whether a
particular caste or tribe should be
11Spl.C.45/2021
considered as one included in the schedule
of the Presidential Order, when it is not so
specifically included, may lead to problems.
In order to gain advantage of reservations
for the purpose of Article 15(4) or 16(4)
several persons have been coming forward
claiming to be covered by Presidential
Orders issued under Articles 341 and 342.
This apart, when no other authority other
than Parliament, that too by law alone can
amend the Presidential Orders, neither the
State Governments nor the courts nor
Tribunals nor any authority can assume
jurisdiction to hold inquiry and take
evidence to declare that a caste or a tribe or
part of or a group within a caste or tribe is
included in Presidential Orders in one entry
or the other although they are not expressly
and specifically included. A court cannot
alter or amend the said Presidential Orders
for the very good reason that it has no
power to do so within the meaning, content
and scope of Articles 341 and 342. It is not
possible to hold that either any inquiry is
permissible or any evidence can be let in, in
relation to a particular caste or tribe to say
whether it is included within Presidential
Orders when it is not so expressly included.
10. It is also undisputed that the Caste
Certificates held by the appellants were
cancelled by the Competent Authority,
namely the District Caste Verification
Committee, and this decision was
communicated to their respective
employers. Subsequently, criminal
proceedings were initiated against some of
the appellants at the concerned police
12Spl.C.45/2021
station; however, these proceedings were
quashed by the High Court while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter
referred to as ‘CrPC‘).
11. Respondent No. 2 i.e., Additional
Director General of Police, Directorate of
Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, intimated
respondent No.1-bank to terminate the
services of the appellants on the ground
that they had secured employment based
on fake Caste Certificates. In turn,
respondent No.1-bank issued notices to the
appellants calling upon them to show cause
as to why their services should not be
terminated. The appellants challenged the
aforesaid notices by filing writ petitions
before the High Court of Karnataka which
came to be rejected.
35. In wake of the discussion made above,
we conclude that the appellants are entitled
to protection of their services by virtue of
the Government circular dated 29th March,
2003 issued by the Government of
Karnataka as ratified by communication
dated 17 th August, 2005 issued by the
Ministry of Finance. The circular dated
29th March, 2003 issued by the
Government of Karnataka specifically
extended protection to various castes,
including those which were excluded in the
earlier Government circular dated 11th
March, 2002. This subsequent circular
covered the castes such as Kotegara,
Kotekshathriya, Koteyava, Koteyar,
Ramakshathriya, Sherugara, and
13Spl.C.45/2021
Sarvegara, thus, ensuring that individuals
of these castes, holding Scheduled Castes
Certificates issued prior to de-scheduling,
would be entitled to claim protection of
their services albeit as unreserved
candidates for all future purposes.
Additionally, the communication issued by
the Ministry of Finance dated 17th August,
2005 reinforced the protective umbrella to
the concerned bank employees and also
saved them from departmental and criminal
action”.
finds that accused has misrepresented and obtained
any caste certificate as Adi Andhra is not forthcoming
from the material placed on record. Under these
circumstances, all the ingredients of offence
punishable u/s.196 and 198 of IPC not being
established by the prosecution is my firm view.
Accordingly, these two Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered
in the Negative.
11. POINT NO.4: In the case on hand, to prove the
ingredients of offence punishable u/s.420 of IPC, the
accused has no any overt act so as to cause any loss or
injury to any person to depart from the property or
causing any loss or injury to person. In the case on
14
Spl.C.45/2021
hand, as per the allegations made accused has
misrepresented and obtained the job is the allegation
made in the charge sheet. However in the documents
placed on record, the form of caste certificates it has
been mentioned as Adi Andhra, however the seal put
on the same discloses which designated authority had
issued the same of Tahsildar, Bengaluru North as on
11.02.1974. However in the attestation form while
either in the employment nor accused has been given
the post of reservation is not specified either in the
employment order or the offer of appointment for the
post of Sweeper which is dated:04.07.1974. Therefore
in column-7 of the appointment offer there is no
mention with regard to caste certificate is to be placed
to obtain the job. Under these circumstances, in the
absence of any material placed by the prosecution, so
as to show that accused has manipulated in obtaining
Adi Andhra caste certificate cannot be considered.
Moreover none of the education documents of the
15
Spl.C.45/2021
accused are being secured by the Investigating Officer
during the course of investigation other than the
documents pertaining to the brothers children of the
accused but not otherwise. Under these
circumstances, accused has misused any caste
certificates cannot be considered, moreover, the
Deputy Commissioner who passed orders had no
jurisdiction as on this date to consider caste
certificates issued even before coming into the course
of Act of 1990 as prayed by the learned counsel for the
accused seems reasonable. In the absence of materials
placed to prove the ingredients of alleged offence
punishable u/s.420 of IPC this court is satisfied to
answer this Point No.4 in the Negative.
12. POINT NO.1: In the case on hand, as per the
observation made supra, the accused has not at all
applied caste certificates as per the provisions of the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
other Backward classes (Reservation of appointment
16
Spl.C.45/2021
etc) Act, 1990. Therefore the order passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, as per Ex.P.8 is
power exercised by the Deputy Commissioner
Chairman, Caste Verification Committee has no any
bearing on the certificate obtained by the accused in
the year 1974 cannot be considered. In fact the
mention made by the P.W.5 that in the year 1986 in
BEL accused has obtained employment is not correct
since as per the offer letter issued on 04.07.1974.
Therefore the order does not have any bearing on the
proof with regard to the ingredients of alleged offence
punishable u/s.3(1)(q) of the Karnataka Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward classes
(Reservation of appointment etc) Act, 1990.
Accordingly this court is satisfied to answer Point No.1
in the Negative.
13. POINT NO.5: The accused did complied the
provisions of section 437A of Cr.P.C., by providing
personal bond before this court, for his appearance
17
Spl.C.45/2021
before the Hon’ble Appellate court. In view of my
foregoing reasons, I proceed the pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of
Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted
of the offence under Section 196,
198, 420 of IPC & Sec.3(1) (q) of
SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989.
The accused is set at liberty.
The bail bond of the accused
and his surety stands cancelled.
However, the bond executed in
compliance of Sec.437(A) of
Cr.P.C., shall be in force till
appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed and typed by her,
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this
the 13th day of May 2025).
(Rajesh Karnam.K)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Session Judge,
Special Judge, Bengaluru.
18
Spl.C.45/2021
ANNEXURE
1.WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE
PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 Ravindra P.W.2 : Ratnakala P.W.3 Jaikumar.K.M. P.W.4 Srinivas P.W.5 Dayananda P.W.6 Pradeep Kumar 2.DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1 School covering document Ex.P.2 Admission extract Ex.P.3 Admission Reg Ex.P.4 School document Ex.P.5 Admission Reg Ex.P.6 Complaint Ex.P.6(a) Signature of PW.4 Ex.P.7 FIR 19 Spl.C.45/2021 Ex.P.7(a) Signature of P.W.4 Ex.P.8 D.C.Order Ex.P.8(a) :Signature of P.W.5 Ex.P.9 :Reminder Ex.P.9(a) :Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.10 :Spot Panchanama Ex.P.10(a) :Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.11 :Requisition Ex.P.11(a) :Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.12 :Admission Reg Ex.P.13 :Requisition letter Ex.P.13(a) :Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.14 :TC Ex.P.15 :Covering letter of college Ex.P.16 :Requisition letter Ex.P.16(a) :Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.17 :Requisition letter Ex.P.17(a) :Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P.18 :Covering letter of BEL Ex.P.18(a) :Signature of P.W.6 20 Spl.C.45/2021
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
Nil
(Rajesh Karnam.K)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Session Judge,
Special Judge, Bengaluru
[ad_2]
Source link