Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs S.N. Chandrashekharaiah on 21 December, 2023

                                                -1-
                                                               NC: 2023:KHC:46915
                                                           CRL.A No. 1799 of 2017




                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

                                            BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1799 OF 2017
                   BETWEEN:

                   STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                   BY TARIKERE POLICE STATION,
                   REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                   HIGH COURT BUILDING,
                   BENGALURU - 01.
                                                                     ...APPELLANT
                   (BY SRI. D. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   S.N. CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH,
                   S/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH,
                   R/O SHIVANI VILLAGE,
                   SHIVANI HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK - 577 228.
Digitally signed                                                    ...RESPONDENT
by SANDHYA S
Location: High     (BY SRI. D MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
Court of
Karnataka
                          THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C
                   PRAYING    TO   GRANT   LEAVE      TO   APPEAL   AGAINST   THE
                   JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITAL PASSED BY THE
                   LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL J.M.F.C.,
                   TARIKERE IN C.C.NO.169/2010 DATED 27.03.2017 THEREBY
                   ACQUITTING ACCUSED/RESPONDENT OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S
                   199 OF IPC R/W 193 OF IPC.
                               -2-
                                            NC: 2023:KHC:46915
                                        CRL.A No. 1799 of 2017




     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

The State/appellant has preferred this appeal against the

judgment of acquittal dated 27.03.2017 passed in

C.C.No.169/2010 by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and

Principal JMFC, Tarikere. (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial

Court')

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal

are referred to as per their status and rank before the trial

Court.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution are that:

The Tahasildar, Tarikere has filed private complaint under

Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 199 of Indian Penal Code alleging

that even though the accused belongs to Veerashaiva Lingayath

Caste (Category 3(b)) sub-caste, Jangama, he got the caste

certificate of Beda, Jangama (Schedule Caste) by giving false

document to the Tahasildar, Tarikere on 19.04.1996 in order to

get Government facilities and thereby cheated the Government

NC: 2023:KHC:46915

and thereby alleged to have committed an offence punishable

under Section 199 of Indian Penal Code. The private complaint

was registered and referred to the Police Inspector of Tarikere

Police Station. Thereafter, the case was registered in Crime

No.45/2008 and submitted First Information Report to the

Court. The police has filed application praying to refer this

matter to the CRE Cell, Mangalore, Senior Dy.S.P., Vigilance

cadre and then it is directed to Civil Rights Enforcement Cell,

Mangalore to investigate the matter. Then the CW.20 and 21

partly investigated the matter and then CW.22 Police Inspector

of Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, Mangalore has

filed charge sheet against the accused for the commission of

offence punishable under Section 199 of Indian Penal Code.

4. After receipt of the charge sheet, the Court has taken

cognizance and the case was registered in C.C.No.169/2010.

The summons was issued and in pursuance of summons, the

accused has appeared before the Court and enlarged on bail.

The charge was framed against the offence punishable under

Section 199 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 193 of

Indian Penal Code and the same was read over to the accused,

NC: 2023:KHC:46915

having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and

claims to be tried.

5. To prove the case of prosecution, 13 witnesses were

examined as PWs.1 to 13 and 9 documents were got marked as

Exs.P1 to P9. CW.6 reported to be dead. CW.8, 12 to 16 were

given up by the prosecution. On closure of prosecution side

evidence, statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was

recorded, accused has denied all incriminating evidence found

against him and two witnesses were examined as DWs.1 and 2

and 19 documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D19. On hearing

the arguments, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader Sri. M.R.Patil

submits that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the

evidence on record in accordance with law and facts. Ex.P5 is

the School Transfer Certificate reveals that the accused belongs

to Lingayath Community. However, as per Ex.P2, he belongs to

Beda Jangama. The same is opposed to his documents

maintained in the official register. The Trial Court has also not

considered other evidence of prosecution. On all these grounds,

he sought to allow this appeal.

NC: 2023:KHC:46915

7. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent

submits that the Trial Court has properly appreciated the

evidence on record and that there are no grounds to interfere

with the impugned judgment of acquittal. He further submits

that the accused has not taken any job/benefits from

Government on the basis of Beda Jangama community and the

respondent is an agriculturist and he has not committed any

offence as alleged by the prosecution. On all these grounds, he

sought to dismiss the appeal.

8. Having heard the arguments on both side and perusal

of material placed before the Court, the following points would

arise for my consideration:-

(i) Whether State/appellant has made out a ground to

interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal?

(ii) What order?

9. My finding to the above points are as under:

(i) in the negative

(ii) as per final order

NC: 2023:KHC:46915

Regarding Point No:1

10. Before appreciating the evidence on record, it is

necessary to mention here the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court

as to the scope and power of Appellate Court in acquittal cases:

11. In the case of MOTIRAM PADU JOSHI & OTHERS

v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in 2018 SCC On-

line SC 676, wherein at paragraph 23 of the judgment, it is

held thus:

"23. While considering the scope of power of the appellate court in an appeal against the order of acquittal, after referring to various judgments, in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007)4 SCC 415, this Court summarised the principle as under:-

"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:

(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons",

NC: 2023:KHC:46915

"good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."

12. In the case of MUNISHAMAPPA & OTHERS v.

STATE OF KARNATAKA & CONNECTED APPEALS reported

in 2019 SCC Online 69, at paragraph 16 of the judgment it

is held as under:

NC: 2023:KHC:46915

"16. The High Court in the present case was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. In such a case, it is well settled that the High Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because it opines that a different view is possible or even preferable.

The High Court, in other words, should not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because two views are possible. The interference of the High Court in such cases is governed by well established principles. According to these principles, it is only where the appreciation of evidence by the trial court is capricious or its conclusions are without evidence that the High Court may reverse an order of acquittal. The High Court may be justified in interfering where it finds that the order of acquittal is not in accordance with law and that the approach of the trial court has led to a miscarriage of justice. ..."

13. In the case of MAHAVIR SINGH v. STATE OF

MADHYA PRADESH reported in (2016)10 SCC 220, at

paragraph 12 of the judgment, it is observed thus:

"12. In the criminal jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is convicted by a competent court after a full-fledged trial, and once the trial court by cogent reasoning acquits the accused, then the reaffirmation of his innocence places more burden on the appellate court while dealing with the appeal. No doubt, it is settled law that there are no fetters on the power of the appellate court to review, reappreciate and re-consider the evidence both on facts and law upon which the order of acquittal is passed. But the court has to be very cautious in interfering

NC: 2023:KHC:46915

with an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court while passing an order has to give clear reasoning for such a conclusion."

14. I have carefully examined the material placed before

this Court including the impugned judgment. The Trial Court

has observed in paragraph Nos.27 to 40 as under:

"27. On perusal of cross examination of PW.1 it discloses that the Tahasildar, Tarikere has filed private complaint to this court against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 199 of IPC stating that District Caste Verification Committee has cancelled the caste certificate of the accused holding that the accused is not belonged to Beda Jangama caste and accused is belongs to Veerashaiva Jangama caste. He has filed complaint stating that the accused has given false information to the Government in order to get Government facilities. On perusal of cross examination of PW.1 it is clear that as per the gazette notification of the Central Government Beda Jangama caste comes under the schedule caste. It further discloses that the PW.5 Tahasildar, Tarikere had given caste certificate to the accused on the basis of document given by the accused. On the perusal of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses it discloses that the accused has taken contention that he is belongs to Beda Jangama caste and in spite of that the District Caste Verification Committee has passed false order holding that he is not belongs to Beda Jangama caste. The District Caste Verification Committee has passed order

- 10 -

NC: 2023:KHC:46915

as per Ex.P.3 stating that the accused is not belongs to Beda Jangama caste. The District Caste Verification Committee is a committee formed by the State Government as per the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indian in Madhuri Patil case. In Dayaram Vs. Sudhir Batham case the Hon'ble Apex Court of India stated about Madhuri Patil case as under:

"To streamline the procedure for the issuance of a caste (social status) certificates, their scrutiny and approval, this Court issued the fifteen directions, relevant portions of which are extracted below:

1) The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue- Sub-

Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such Officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level.

2) The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the concerned directorate.

3) Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post.

4) All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely (1) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC:46915

higher in rank of the Director of the concerned department, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimated knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities.

5) Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims.

6) The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be 'not genuine' or 'doubtful' or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of the concerned educational institution in which the candidate is studying or employed. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-?-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof.

7) In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed.

- 12 -

NC: 2023:KHC:46915

8) Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates.

9) The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day- to- day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant.

10) In case of any delay in finalizing the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an education institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee.

11) The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

12) No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie.

- 13 -

NC: 2023:KHC:46915

13) The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible with a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/Miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136.

14) In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or the Parliament.

15) As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the concerned educational institution or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The principal etc., of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate for further study or continue in office in a post. (emphasis supplied)."

28. In the above said decision, at Para-10 it is held as under:

"Each scrutiny committee has a vigilance cell which acts as the investigating wing of the committee. The Core function of the scrutiny

- 14 -

NC: 2023:KHC:46915

committee, in verification of caste certificates, is the investigation carried on by its vigilance cell. When an application for verification of the caste certificate is received by the scrutiny committee, its vigilance cell investigates into the claim, collects the facts, examines the records, examines the relations or friend and persons who have knowledge about the social status of the candidate and submits a report to the committee. If the report supports the claim for caste status, there is no hearing and the caste claim is confirmed. If the report of the vigilance cell discloses that the claim for the social status claimed by the candidate was doubtful or not genuine, a show cause notice is issued by the committee to the candidate. After giving due opportunity to the candidate to place any material in support of his claim, and after making such enquiry as it deems expedient, the scrutiny committee considers the claim for caste status and the vigilance cell report, as also any objections that may be raised by any opponent to the claim of the candidate for caste status, and pass appropriate orders. The scrutiny committee is not an adjudicating authority like a Court or Tribunal, but an administrative body which verifies the facts, investigates into a specific claim (of caste status) and ascertains whether the caste/tribal status claimed is correct or not. Like any other decisions of administrative authorities, the orders of the scrutiny committee are also open to challenge in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. Permitting civil suits with provisions for appeals and further appeals would defeat the very scheme and will encourage the very evils which this court wanted to eradicate. As this Court found that a large number of seats or posts reserved for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes were being taken away by bogus candidates claiming

- 15 -

NC: 2023:KHC:46915

to belong to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, this Court directed constitution of such scrutiny committee, to provide an expeditious, effective and efficacious remedy, in the absence of any statute or a legal framework for proper verification of false claims regarding SCs/STs status. This entire scheme in Madhuri Patil will only continue till the concerned legislate makes appropriate legislation in regard to verification of claims for caste status as SC/ST and issue of caste certificates, or in regard to verification of caste certificates already obtained by candidates who seek the benefit of reservation, relying upon such caste certificates."

29. The said procedure was provided for a fair and just verification and to shorten the undue delay and also prevent avoidable expenditure for the State on the education of the candidate admitted/appointed on false social status or further continuance therein, every State should endeavour to give effect to it and to see that the constitutional objectives intended for the benefit and advancement of the genuine scheduled castes/scheduled tribes are not defeated by unscrupulous persons. In the said directions it is stated that, the application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue-Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such Officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level. It is further stated that, the parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the

- 16 -

NC: 2023:KHC:46915

concerned directorate. It is further stated that application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post. It is further stated that all the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely (1) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the concerned department, (II) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimated knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities. It is further stated that, each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. It is further stated that, the Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be 'not genuine' or 'doubtful' or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of the concerned educational institution in which the candidate is studying or employed. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-?-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. It is further

- 17 -

NC: 2023:KHC:46915

stated that, in case the report is in favor of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed. It is further stated that, notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates. It is further stated that the inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day- to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the caste Scrutiny Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order canceling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant.

30. On perusal of the above directions it is clear that scrutiny committee was formed by the Government as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Madhuri Patil case. As per the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Madhuri Patil case, the scrutiny committee should follow directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for verification of the caste certificate of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe persons.

31. In this regard the Government of Karnataka has also issued gazette notification for formation of caste verification committee. In this regard advocate for the accused has furnished the xerox copy of said gazette notification. It discloses that the caste

- 18 -

NC: 2023:KHC:46915

verification committee for each district has formed to verify the caste certificate issued in respect of the persons belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe and the committee shall consists of (1) The Deputy Commissioner of the District who shall be the Chairman, (2) The Deputy Secretary (Administration) of the Zilla Panchayath, (3) The Tahasildar of Taluk and (4) The District Social Welfare Officer who shall be the Member Secretary.

32. Now it is necessary to know who is Lingayath. In this regard, advocate for the accused has argued that Lingayath is not a caste. But it would be more correct to treat it as a religion or a way of life. In this regard he has furnished Mysore State Gazetteer for the Chitradurga District as per Ex.D.18. In Ex.D.18 it is stated that Lingayath is generally looked upon as a caste, it would be more correct to treat it as a religion or a way of life. Lingayat is general designation for several castes, the members of which wear the Linga on their bodies after due initiation. Thus included in that name, are many castes. Each caste, though professing the Lingayat religion, follows its own customs and usages, of course with some notable exceptions, for instance at the Lingayat marriage and funerals only a Jangama can officiate. From all these facts it is clear that the term Lingayat has more a religious than a caste significance. The advocate for the accused has also furnished Karnataka State Gazetteer relating to Uttara Kannada District as per Ex.D.17. In Ex.D.17 the Government of Karnataka has stated the meaning of the Lingayath as under

"Lingayath: The term Lingayat or Veerashaiva represents a faith and not a caste. The reformers like Basaveshwara brought into the Veerashaiva fold people

- 19 -

NC: 2023:KHC:46915

of many castes and sub-castes. They are found mostly in up-ghat taluks of Haliyal, Sirsi, Mundgod and Siddapur. Thus Lingayats or Veerashaivas came to follow a number of diverse occupations such as agriculture, labour, trade, industry, handicraft, priesthood, and public and private services. Lingayats are said to have migrated here from old Hyderbad State during the rule of the Lingayat chiefs of Sonda. Some of them seem to have come from Dharwad and Belgaum districts to trade in spices. Ashtavaranas (eight fold aids to faith), panchacharas (five fold discipline) and shatsthalas (six fold stages towards union with God) form the fundamental structure of Veerashaiva faith. The first may be said to be its body, the second its breath and the third its soul. The followers of the Veerashaiva faith wear a linga on their bodies."

33. As per Section 7-A of Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) (Amendment) Rule 1993 the caste verification committee hold enquiry after giving opportunity to the parties and committee may examine documents and if it finds claim is genuine it may issue certificate. If it finds the claim is false, reject the application. If it finds doubtful, it shall refer the matter to Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate for investigation. After receipt of report by giving opportunity to the applicant, the committee shall dispose the case on merit. Any person aggrieved may appeal to the Divisional Commissioner. The caste verification committee shall send a copy to Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate for prosecuting the applicant.

- 20 -

NC: 2023:KHC:46915

34.. As per the gazette notification Beda Jangama caste comes under Scheduled Caste as per SC/ST orders (Amendment) 1976. It is not a disputed fact.

35. On this background it is necessary to peruse the evidence of PW3. PW.3 is the Taluk Social Welfare Officer. His evidence discloses that as per the directions of his higher officer, he visited the village of the accused and enquired about the caste of the accused and he came to know that some persons informed him that the accused is belongs to Beda Jangama caste and some persons have told that the accused is belongs to Veerashaiva Jangama caste. The evidence of PW.4 discloses that he was the member of District Caste Verification Committee. His evidence discloses that he got the information from the Revenue Inspector and Village Accountant about the caste of the accused and then he reported to the Deputy Commissioner stating that the accused is not belongs to Beda Jangama caste. Then District Caste Verification Committee has cancelled the caste certificate of the accused.

36. PW.7 is the Revenue Inspector who deposed that he knows the accused and the accused is belongs to Veerashaiva Lingayath caste. PW.8 is the Social Welfare Officer. He also went to the village of the accused and enquired about the caste of the accused and came to know that the accused is not belongs to Beda Jangama caste. PW.5 was the Tahasildar, Tarikere. He had given caste certificate to the accused stating that the accused was belonging to Beda Jangama caste. On perusal of his cross examination it discloses that before issuing the caste certificate to the accused, he had received the report from the Village Accountant and Revenue Inspector and the said documents are in the Taluk office. His

- 21 -

NC: 2023:KHC:46915

cross examination discloses that he has verified the documents furnished by the accused. He admitted that he did not appear before the District Caste Verification Committee.

37. On perusal of cross examination of the witnesses, it is clear that the accused has taken specific contention that he is belongs to Beda Jangama caste. But the District Caste Verification Committee without giving opportunity to him has wrongly passed order stating that he is not belonging to Beda Jangama caste. The order passed by the District Caste Verification Committee is marked as Ex.P.3. On perusal of Ex.P.3 discloses that the District Caste Verification Committee has passed order on 03.04.2001. The District Caste Verification Committee has received the report from the Deputy Tahasildar and Revenue Inspector and from the Taluk Social Welfare Officer and found that the accused is belonged to Lingayath caste and said caste comes under Veerashaiva sub caste and it has opined that the accused is belongs to Lingayath caste and held that the accused is not belonging to Beda Jangama caste. Ex.P.2 is the caste certificate issued by the Tahasildar stating that the accused is belonging to Beda Jangama caste, but said caste certificate is issued subject to caste verification by the State Caste Verification Committee. Ex.P.5 discloses that the accused is belongs to Lingayath caste.

38. As per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Madhuri Patil case, each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over all charge to investigate into the social status claims and the Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be 'not genuine' or 'doubtful' or

- 22 -

NC: 2023:KHC:46915

spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-?-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained. But on perusal of Ex.P.3 it discloses that the District Caste Verification Committee has not issued directions to the vigilance to enquire about the caste of the accused. But it has passed order by receiving reports from its subordinate officers i.e., Deputy Tahasildar and Taluk Social Welfare Officer. But as per the directions in Madhuri Patil case, the Caste Verification Committee has to get report from the vigilance. In this regard advocate for the accused has got marked 2 documents as per Ex.D.1 and 2 through the Police Inspector, DCRE, Mangalore. Ex.D.1 is the report given by the Superintendent of Police, Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate, Mangalore to the Additional Director General of Police, Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate, Bengaluru stating that it has enquired the caste of the accused and it came to know that the accused is belonging to Beda Jangama caste. Ex.D.2 is the report given by the Additional Director General of Police to the President of State Caste Verification Committee, Bengaluru stating that as per the school document accused is belongs to Lingayath caste, but as per the spot mahazar and statements of

- 23 -

NC: 2023:KHC:46915

witnesses and relatives and as per the customs, it came to know that the accused is belongs to Beda Jangama caste.

39. Earlier State Caste Verification Committee was appointed to scrutinize the caste certificate. Then as per the circular of Karnataka State Government, District Caste Verification Committee came into existence. The Superintendent of Police, Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate has given report and as per his report, the Additional Director General of Police has also given report to the State Caste Verification Committee about the caste of the accused. But the District Caste Verification Committee has not issued notice to the accused for enquiry about the caste of the accused. It has not given opportunity to the accused to produce documents and also to prove his case before the District Caste Verification Committee. Ex.P.3 discloses that even District Caste Verification Committee has not considered the report given by the Superintendent of Police, Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate, Mangalore.

40. On perusal of the above evidence this court is of the view that the District Caste Verification Committee has not followed the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India at the time of verification of the caste certificate of the accused. Ex.D.1 and 2 clearly discloses that the accused is belongs to Beda Jangama caste. The District Caste Verification Committee has not considered the said report. As per the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Madhuri Patil case, the District Caste Verification Committee has to direct its vigilance to enquire about the caste of the accused and after receipt of the report from the vigilance it has to accept the report and if the report confirms the caste certificate of the

- 24 -

NC: 2023:KHC:46915

person and if the reports finds that the accused is not belongs to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, then the District Caste Verification Committee has to issue notice to the concerned person directing him to prove his caste. But in this case District Caste Verification Committee has not issued directions to the CRE Cell to enquire about the caste of the accused and even it has not issued notice to the accused to prove his case before District Caste Verification Committee. Moreover Ex.D.1 and 2 discloses that by custom accused is belongs the caste of Beda Jangama. Hence, this court is of the view that the District Caste Verification Committee has not followed the procedure as laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indian in Madhuri Patil case. The PW.13 has only verified the records and filed the charge sheet. Even he has not visited the village of the accused and not recorded the statement of the villagers and he has not made any effort to know the custom of the accused. Hence, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt is given to the accused. Hence, I answered Point No.1 in the Negative."

15. On re-appreciation / re-examination / reconsideration

of entire evidence on record, I do not find any legal infirmities

or illegalities in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by

the Trial Court. Hence, I answer the point No.1 in Negative.

- 25 -

NC: 2023:KHC:46915

Regarding Point No.2:

16. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed

to pass the following:

ORDER

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. The judgment dated 27.03.2017 passed in

Criminal Case No.169/2010 by the Court of the

Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Tarikere,

is confirmed.