Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 224 (KAR)

Anil Kumar S/O Babu Rao v. State of Karnataka

2025-06-05

V.SRISHANANDA

body2025
ORDER : V SRISHANANDA, J. Heard Sri Ashok Mulage, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. 2. Accused, who has suffered an order of conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 198 and 417 of IPC in C.C.No.581/2008 confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.32/2017, is the revision petitioner. 3. Facts in nutshell for disposal of the present revision petition are as under. A complaint came to be lodged with Brahampur Police Station, Kalaburagi on 26.06.2013, alleging that on 08.04.1991, accused being the member of Hadpad caste, with dishonest intention submitted false documents, false affidavit and providing false information to Tahsildar, Kalaburagi and by inducing him obtained a false caste certificate, as petitioner is belonging to Madiga caste on 01.06.1991. Based on the same, he obtained an engineering seat under the Scheduled Caste quota at PDA College, Kalaburagi. The said act of the petitioner not only resulted in offence of cheating, but also deprived an eligible person from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe quota from obtaining the seat in the said college and therefore, sought for action. 4. After thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused. Accused pleaded guilty and therefore, trial was held and after due trial, accused was convicted for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as under: “Accused is hereby sentenced to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable U/sec 417 of IPC . In default he shall undergo S/I for 2 months in addition. Further the accused hereby sentenced to undergo 3 years imprisonment and pay fine of Rs 5000/- for the offence punishable U/sec 198 of IPC . In default shall undergo S/I for 2 months in addition. All the sentenced shall run concurrently. Bail and surety bonds executed by the accused except the 437(A) of Cr.P.C. compliance bonds stands cancelled. Issue free copy to the accused.” 5. Being aggrieved by the same, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.32/2017. 6. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and on re-appreciation, dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. 7. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision on the following grounds. 6. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and on re-appreciation, dismissed the appeal of the accused and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. 7. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision on the following grounds. a) That, the Judgment and order passed by the trial court in C.C. No.581/2008 dated: 22.05.2017 is illegal frivolous and against the well established principles of law and the material produced the lower court. b) That, both the courts below wrongly convicted the petitioner U/Sec.198 of IPC , the provision of Sec.198 of IPC are reproduced herein below Sec.198. The above provision is used such person whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use any such certificate as a true certificate knowing the same to be false in any material point shall be punished in the same manner as if he give false evidence. c) The above provision is alleged that such person who corruptly uses as, attempts to use any such certificate knowing the same to be false, in the entire evidence produced by the prosecution a prosecution has not established that the petitioner corruptly used the certificate. d) That, Section 197 of IPC clearly state that before that the whoever issuing or signs any certificate required by law to be given or signed or relating to any facts of which such certificate is by law admissible in evidence knowing or believing that such certificate is false in any material point shall be punished, the prosecution has not made charge sheet witnesses as the Village accountant, revenue inspector, the Tahasildar who has signed the caste certificate of the petitioner. e) That, the respondent Police filed charge sheet against the appellant/petitioner U/Sec.420 and 198 of IPC the trial court has not convicted appellant U/Sec.420 of IPC want of evidence and casually convicted the appellant/petitioner U/Sec.417 of IPC wich was not charged. e) That, the respondent Police filed charge sheet against the appellant/petitioner U/Sec.420 and 198 of IPC the trial court has not convicted appellant U/Sec.420 of IPC want of evidence and casually convicted the appellant/petitioner U/Sec.417 of IPC wich was not charged. f) That, Sec.415 of IPC defines cheating the Tahasildar who issued the caste certificate in question has not whispered to the effect that, the petitioner/appellant disbelieved him and fraudulent and dishonesty induced him to deliver any property to any person and admittedly the caste certificate in question was issued by the Tahasildar on the basis of panchanama conducted by the village accountant and revenue inspector of the area and on those reports it cannot be said that the petitioner/appellant deceived and fraudulently and dishonestly induced Tahasildar to issue the caste certificate in question deception is necessary ingredients U/Sec.415 and hence 417 of IPC . g) That, (PW-11, CW-1) P. Chandregouda disposes that he was directed by the DCREG and on 26.06.2003 on enquiry into the case the complaint against the accused and on the same day he prepared separate report and files first information report before Brahampur Police Station his first information based on the alleged enquiry report of CW-14, M. Bhimaraya and on the basis of said enquiry of CW-14, the caste verification committee without verifying themselves using the caste delegated ADGP to initiate criminal proceeding against the accused/petitioner. PW-11 in his cross examination admits that, before lodging the first information with respondent Police he has not participated in the inquiry and he has also admitted that, he has not annexed any document along with his FIR and further he has deposed that he has no personal knowledge about the case and he has only seen the documents. h) PW-14 deposes that, CW-16 has enquired about the caste and on the basis he has given his report and prosecution has not examined PW- 16 and in the cross examination admits that he has not done any enquiry or investigation in the matter that PW-15 is investigation office who has conducted major investigation he admits that, in Ex.P11 to 16 the caste of the petitioner/appellant shown as SC they also admitted that the original caste certificate question not collected by him during investigation and further he admits that seen the original file the Tahasil office was destroyed. Hence he is not in a position to say who has committed the offence, and he has also not verified the records, under basis of which Exhibit P-1 was issued and he also admits that, in Ex.P-22 there is no personal opinion of Tahasildar and in Ex.P23 there is no mention conducting of local panchanama. i) That, the offences as said to committed in the year 1991 and the charge sheet is filed in the year 2008 offences U/Sec.417 punishable for one year or fine, the period for taking cognizance of said offence is only 3 years. j) That, both the courts below have not properly and judiciously appreciated the evidence on record, and failed to secure the proper witnesses and hence came to wrong conclusion. k) That, the Law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind was produced before the courts below and have not considered the same, and the State Government by circular dated: 05.05.2003 relying upon the Apex Court ruling referred herein has issued guidelines which was brought to the notice of Trial Court, the Trial Court has not considered the same. l) That, the petitioner has not obtained any Government employment or Government payment on the basis of degree completed by him and has not using the caste certificate in question. m) That, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Kalaburagi Bench in Crl. P. No.200289/2014 by its order dated: 31.03.2016 filed by the petitioner has also observed that the petitioner can make use of the ruling used by him before the trial court and the said ruling was not applied by the trial court. n) That, even viewed otherwise from any angle, the impugned orders passed by the courts below are illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and records of the case besides being against the principles of natural justice. o) That some more grounds will be urged at the time of arguments. 8. Sri Ashok Mulage, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition vehemently contended that no monetary benefit has been utilized by the accused nor he has continued with the education and he surrendered the caste certificate and therefore, the order of conviction passed by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs to be set aside. 9. 9. Alternatively, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, custody period already undergone by the accused may be treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 10. Per contra, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the impugned judgments by contending that admittedly, the petitioner/accused was belonging to Hadpad Community, which is not a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and therefore, obtaining a false certificate as petitioner belonging to Madiga Community and with the aid of such certificate, obtaining an engineering seat in PDA College, Kalaburagi, shows the criminality in the incident. Therefore, order of conviction needs to be maintained and no leniency can be shown to such people, inasmuch as, an eligible candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Community has been deprived of an engineering seat because of the action attributable to the petitioner/accused and thus, sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 11. Having heard the arguments on both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the case hinged on the documentary evidence rather than the oral evidence. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner belongs to Hadpad Community and by furnishing the false information, false documents and providing false affidavit, accused was able to manage to get a certificate that he is belonging to Madiga Community, which comes under Scheduled Caste and obtained a false caste certificate. 13. It is also established by the prosecution with cogent evidence on record that with the aid of such caste certificate, accused obtained an engineering seat under Scheduled Caste quota in PDA College, Kalaburagi. No doubt, later on the accused has surrendered the caste certificate. 14. But mere surrender of the caste certificate would not ipso facto efface the criminality involved in the incident. These aspects of matter has been rightly appreciated by both the Courts on facts and have recorded a categorical finding that accused is guilty of the aforesaid offences and therefore, conviction order recorded by both the Courts cannot be interfered by this Court that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 15. Having said thus, the accused having surrendered the caste certificate cannot misuse the same any longer in future. 15. Having said thus, the accused having surrendered the caste certificate cannot misuse the same any longer in future. Therefore, the alternate submission made on behalf accused needs consideration by this Court in this revision. 16. Having noted that accused being absconding in the beginning and later on, he was secured by issuing non-bailable warrant and he has spent two days in the judicial custody, for the proved offences, if the accused is ordered to pay enhanced fine amount by treating the custody period as period of imprisonment, as accused is admittedly a first time offender, ends of justice would be met. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, following: ORDER a. Criminal revision petition is allowed in part. b. While maintaining the conviction of the accused/petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 198 and 417 of IPC , custody period already undergone by the accused/petitioner is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.75,000/-. c. Time is granted till 10.07.2025 to the accused/petitioner to pay the enhanced fine amount. d. Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount would automatically result in the imprisonment ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court.