Allowed

Shivamadana @ Shivamadanayaka v. State by Pandavapura Police

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2021CRL.A/1570/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against anticipatory bail rejection. Court found insufficient material in charge-sheet to establish offence under SC/ST Act against appellant charged only under IPC 420. Allowed appeal, set aside impugned order, and granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail to the appellant subject to execution of personal bond with two sureties for Rs. 50,000 each and other standard conditions.

Shivamadana @ Shivamadanayaka Vs State by… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1570 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SHIVAMADANA @ SHIVAMADANAYAKA S/O. LATE KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT DINKA VILLAGE CHINAKURALI HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 434. … APPELLANT

¶9

[BY SRI. RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE]

¶10

AND

¶11

STATE BY PANDAVAPURA POLICE MANDYA REPRESENTED BY SPP. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001. … RESPONDENT

¶12

[BY SRI. C. JAGADISH, STANDING COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT/DCRE; SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR R1/STATE]

¶13

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-A(2) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2021 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR. NO.421/2018 OF PANDAVAPURA POLICE, MANDYA, ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, MANDYA, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 198, 420 R/W 34

¶15

¶16

OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(ix) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The appellant is before this Court in this appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as ‘SC and ST [POA] Act’ for short] praying to set aside the Order dated 09.09.2021 passed by the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Crl. Misc. No.892/2021 and to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in Crime No.421/2018 registered at Pandavapura Police Station, Mandya District.

¶20

Charge-sheet has been filed against accused Nos.1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 198, 420 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(ix) of the SC and ST [POA] Act. The appellant is arraigned as accused No.2 in the charge-sheet.

¶21

¶22

In brief, the allegations are that the accused originally belong to backward class, Category-I ‘Besta /Gangamatha’ community and with an intention of cheating, obtained a false Caste Certificate as ‘Nayaka’ coming under Scheduled Tribe, from the Tahasildar, Pandavapura, on 18.03.20015 and on the basis of the same, accused No.1 secured a job of a Police Constable. The appellant/accused No.2 is the father of accused No.1.

¶23

It is contended by the learned standing counsel for the respondent that accused No.2 filed a suit on behalf of his son i.e., accused No.1 in O.S. No.116/2007 and obtained an order to amend the school records of accused No.1 to change his caste/community from ‘Besta/ Gangamatha’ to ‘Nayaka’. After obtaining Court order, the accused have obtained a false Caste Certificate from the Tahsildar, Pandavapura. On this basis, accused No.1 has obtained fee concession and student scholarship under the Scheduled Tribes reservation quota. Thereafter, accused No.1 while applying for the post of a Police Constable, inserted the caste as ‘Nayaka’ community coming under

¶24

¶25

Scheduled Tribes and obtained concession and got selected as a Police Constable.

¶26

The further contention of the learned standing counsel is that, the District Caste Verification Committee by its Order dated 27.08.2018 has annulled the Caste Certificate of accused No.1 and the same has become final, which confirms that the accused have obtained a false Caste Certificate and cheated the Government. He contends that the ingredients of the offence under the SC and ST [POA] Act are made out and therefore, the appellant is not entitled for anticipatory bail as there is a bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC and ST [POA] Act.

¶27

The perusal of the First Information Report would reveal that the appellant is not arraigned as an accused in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. was registered against his son viz., accused No.1 alleging that he obtained a false Caste Certificate from the Tahsildar, Pandavapura, as ‘Nayaka’ community though he belong to backward class, Category-I ‘Besta /Gangamatha’ and using the same, secured the job of a Police Constable.

¶28

¶29

The learned counsel for the appellant would point out that against the appellant who has been arraigned as accused No.2, only Section 420 of IPC has been invoked in the charge-sheet. He therefore, contends that bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC and ST [POA] Act will not come in the way of granting relief to the appellant.

¶30

It is the case of prosecution that accused No.2 i.e., the appellant herein filed a suit in O.S. No.116/2007 before the Civil Court, on behalf of his son i.e., accused No.1 and on the basis of which obtained a false Caste Certificate from the Tahsildar, Pandavapura.

¶31

The learned standing counsel for the complainant has contended that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of T.N. and Others Vs. A.Gurusamy reported in (1997)3 Supreme Court Cases 542 the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide the caste and in the present case, the District Caste Verification Committee has annulled the Cast Certificate of accused No.1.

¶32

¶33

It is not in dispute that the Court of Civil Judge [Jr. Dn.] and JMFC., Pandavapura, vide Judgment dated 26.11.2008, decreed the suit in O.S. No.116/2007 filed by D.S.Ramaswamy viz., accused No.1, declaring that the plaintiff belong to ‘Nayaka’ community and also directed to rectify by changing the same in school records.

¶34

In the said suit, it was pleaded that while issuing the Transfer Certificate, the Head Master of the school has wrongly mentioned the caste of the plaintiff as of ‘Gangamatha’ instead of ‘Nayaka’. The Civil Court has not held that the plaintiff belong to Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste. Direction was to rectify the entry in the school records, by deleting the wrong entry made as ‘Gangamatha’.

¶35

Be that as it may, the name of the appellant is not in the First Information Report. In the charge-sheet, he has been arraigned as accused No.2 by invoking Section 420 of IPC. It appears that on the basis of the decree obtained by the Civil Court, the Caste Certificate was issued to accused No.1. Hence, at this stage it cannot be

¶36

¶37

said that the ingredients of the offences alleged are made out against the appellant/accused No.2. The allegations have to be established by the prosecution in the course of trial. In the above facts and circumstances, the appellant has made out sufficient ground to allow the appeal. Hence the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The Order dated 09.09.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. No.892/2021 by the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, is set aside.

¶40

The appellant/accused No.2 shall be released in the event of his arrest in Crime No.421/2018 registered at Pandavapura Police Station, Mandya District, now pending on the file of the V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, subject to following conditions:

¶41

(1) Appellant shall appear before the jurisdictional Court within a period of 10 [ten] days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/-

¶42

¶43

[Rupees Fifty Thousand Only] with two sureties for likesum.

¶44

(2) Appellant shall furnish his address proof and inform the Court in case of change in the address.

¶45

(3) Appellant shall cooperate with the further investigation/enquiry if any and he shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶46

(4) Appellant shall be regular in attending the Court proceedings.

¶47

The observations made in this order is confined to disposal of this appeal and shall not influence the trial of the case or any proceedings, in any manner.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Ksm*

Shivamadana @ Shivamadanayaka v. State by Pandavapura Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivamadana @ Shivamadanayaka v. State by Pandavapura Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Koushik Vs State of Karnataka

Anthony Harry Pinto Vs Dada Peer

State of Karnataka through Vs K J Murugesh

State of Karnataka Vs Rafi @ Kalu

Mr Shyam Sundar Vs Apple Nutra Pharmaceuticals

Mahadeva P Vs State of Karnataka