- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2903 WP No. 104945 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 103310 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 104945 OF 2022 (GM-CC) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103310 OF 2022 IN WP NO.104945 OF 2022: BETWEEN: SHRI. BHIMAPPA RAMAPPA NANJAGI AGE. 59 YEARS, OCCN. SR. POSTAL SUPERINTENDENT, GULBARGA DISTRICT, R/O. SAVALAGI VILLAGE, JAMAKHANDI TALUKA, BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587330. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATESH M.KHARVI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JAMKHANDI P.S., HIGH COURT KARNATAKA, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580008. 2. DR. LAXMIKANT S. BANIKOL AGE. MAJOR, OCC. SUB INSPECTOR, CIVIL RIGHT ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, R/O. BAGALKOT, DIST. BAGALKOT-587103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. C.JAGADISH, ADV. FOR R2) Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2903 WP No. 104945 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 103310 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W 482 OF Cr.P.C., PRAYING TO, ISSUE THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY ORDER OR DIRECTIONS TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN JAMAKHANDI TOWN P.S. DATED 25/07/2022 ON THE FILE OF IIND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT IN SPL. C.C.NO. 98/2022 OF JAMKHANDI CRIME NO. 36/2022 AGAINST THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 199 AND 420 OF IPC AND S.3(1)(Q) OF PREVENTION OF (SC AND ST) ATROCITIES ACT AND S. 5(A), 5(B) OF KARNATAKA SC AND ST AND OTHER B.C. (RESERVATION OF APPOINTMENT ACT) 1990 VIDE ANNEXURE-Z. IN CRL.P. NO.103310 OF 2022: BETWEEN: SRI. YACHARASWAMI S/O. NAMDEV SUNAGAR AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. JAKNUR, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RON POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001. 2. THE POLICE INSPECTOR OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, CELL – BAGALKOT-587101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. C.JAGADISH, ADV. FOR R2) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2903 WP No. 104945 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 103310 of 2022 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18/02/2019 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE GADAG, THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 196, 198, 420, OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1) (q) OF SC/ST AMENDMENT ACT 2015., IN SPL. SC/ST-02/2019 AND IN CRIME NO. 51/2018 OF RON PS AND ALLOW THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioners challenge the cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 199 and 420 of IPC, Section 3(1)(q) of Prevention of (SC and ST) Atrocities Act, and Section 5(a), 5(b) of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.) Act, 1990 (for short `Act, 1990’). WP No.104945/2022: 2. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner although does not belong to Hindu Nayaka community by misrepresentation obtained a caste certificate certifying that he belongs to Hindu Nayaka community from the Tahsildar concerned, and secured an employment in the Postal Department. The caste certificate issued to the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2903 WP No. 104945 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 103310 of 2022 petitioner subsequently was cancelled, and the same has attained finality. Crl.P No.103310/2022: 3. The petitioner challenges the cognizance taken by the Trial Court of the offences punishable under Sections 196, 198, 420 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(q) of the SC/ST Amendment Act, 2015. 4. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, although belongs to Tokrekoli community, obtained by misrepresentation - a caste certificate certifying that he belongs to Tokrekoli community , which is classified as SC/ST community from the Tahsildar concerned, and secured employment in the Railway Department. The caste certificate issued to the petitioner subsequently was cancelled after holding an enquiry by the Tahsildar concerned, and the same has attained finality. The caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled by the District Caste Verification Committee when the caste certificate was sent for validation. 5. The cancellation of the caste certificates issued in favour of the petitioners has attained finality. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2903 WP No. 104945 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 103310 of 2022 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the caste certificates issued to the petitioners were prior to commencement of SC/ST PA Act, which came into effect from 11th September, 1989. Therefore, the cognizance of the offences punishable under the said Act is hit by Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that the cognizance taken of the offences punishable under Sections 196 and 198 of IPC on the basis of final report submitted by the police is impermissible as stated under Section 195 of Cr.PC. He further submitted that if two separate offences are made out in the course of the same transaction for one of which Section 195 of Cr.PC is not attracted, and it is not possible to split them up, the drill of Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.PC must be followed. In support, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bandekar Brothers Private Limited and another –vs- Prasad Vassudev Keni and others – (2020) 20 SCC 1, co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P No.200753/2019 (DD 18.7.2023) and Crl.RP No.989/2012 and connected petition (DD 11.1.2022) 7. In response, Sri C Jagadish, learned counsel for the respondent – State argued that the petitioners by obtaining caste certificates fraudulently have played a - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2903 WP No. 104945 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 103310 of 2022 fraud not only on the society but in effect and substance plays a fraud on the Constitution. He further submitted that it is immaterial whether the offences are committed prior to commencement of Act, 1985. When the petitioners have fraudulently obtained the caste certificates, they are liable to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under the Act, 1989. He further submitted that the prosecution of the petitioners for obtaining a false caste certificate is envisaged under Rule 7-A of the Rules, 1992. Therefore, the cognizance taken of the offences by the Trial Court does not warrant any interference. In support, he places reliance on the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Madhukar –vs- State by Hosanagara Police and anr. (Crl.P No.2346/2014) (DD 26.4.2019). 8. Considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the following is noted: 9. In WP No.104945/2022, the petitioner had obtained the caste certificate fraudulently i.e. he belongs to Hindu Nayaka on 27.3.1981. In WP No.103310/2022, the petitioner had obtained the caste certificate fraudulently on 11.7.1988. stating that he belongs to said caste. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2903 WP No. 104945 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 103310 of 2022 10. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 came into effect from 11th September, 1989. Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India states that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of law in force at the time of commission of the act charged as an offence. In the instant case, the provisions contained in the Prevention of Atrocities Act were not in force as on the date when the petitioners allegedly obtained the caste certificates fraudulently. Therefore, taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(9) of the SC/ST (PA) Act is impermissible. 11. A coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.RP No.989/2012 and connected petition (DD 11.1.2022) has ruled that 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 schedule caste/scheduled tribe. The said provision cannot be invoked in the charge sheet, even if it were to be assumed that certificates are obtained by giving false information. 12. The decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Madhukar (supra), placed reliance on the decision - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2903 WP No. 104945 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 103310 of 2022 of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and others –vs- Ravi Prakash Babulalsing parmar and another – (2007) 1 SCC 80 and has ruled as follows: “The makers of the Constitution laid emphasis on equality amongst citizens. The Constitution of India provides for protective discrimination and reservation so as to enable the disadvantaged group to come on the same platform as that of the forward community. If and when a person takes an undue advantage of the said beneficent provision of the Constitution by obtaining the benefits of reservation and other benefits provided under the Presidential Order although he is not entitled thereto, he not only plays a fraud on the society but in effect and substance plays a fraud on the Constitution. When, therefore, a certificate is granted to a person who is not otherwise entitled thereto, it is entirely incorrect to contend that the State shall be helpless spectator in the matter.” 13. The coordinate Bench has further ruled that Rule 7A of Rules, 1982 specifically provides for prosecution of the offenders who have obtained false caste certificates. In view of the legal and factual position, the prosecution of the petitioner therein for the alleged offences under Sections 196, 198, 420 of IPC and Section 3(1)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, cannot be faulted with as the allegations made in the complaint prima facie make out the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2903 WP No. 104945 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 103310 of 2022 ingredients of the above offences alleged against the petitioner therein. 14. The concerned Tahsildar is empowered to issue Caste Certificates following the notification dated 22.03.1977, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs. The notification states that since only revenue authorities have access to relevant revenue records and are in a position to conduct reliable inquiries, the Government of India insists upon the production of certificates from such authorities only. Therefore, to be competent to issue such a certificate, the authority mentioned in the Government of India order dated 05.08.1975 should be the one concerned with the locality in which the person applying for the certificate resides, as well as their place of permanent abode at the time of the notification of the relevant presidential order. Thus, the Revenue Authority of one district would not be competent to issue such a certificate in respect of a person belonging to another district. 15. Section 11(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 enumerates the duties and powers of the tahsildar, as may be expressly imposed or conferred upon him by this Act or any other law for the time being in force, or as may be delegated to him by the Deputy - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2903 WP No. 104945 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 103310 of 2022 Commissioner under General or special orders of the State Government. 16. Section 24 of the Act states that a revenue officer not below the rank of a tahsildar, while exercising powers under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, shall inquire into or decide any question arising for determination between the State Government and any person or between parties to any proceedings. Such an officer shall be considered Revenue Court. 17. A cumulative reading of these provisions indicates that the tahsildar is not only empowered to perform such duties and exercise powers under this Act but also under any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, a tahsildar who issues Cast Certificate following the notification issued by the Government of India is also treated as Revenue Court. Subsection (3) of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. defines the term "Court" and states that it includes Civil, Revenue, or Criminal Courts, as well as tribunals constituted by or under a Central or State Act. Therefore, Revenue Court is also treated as a Court under subsection (3) of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. 18. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Section 196 of the IPC. Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. states that for offences punishable under Sections 193 to 196 (inclusive), - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2903 WP No. 104945 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 103310 of 2022 cognizance can only be taken on a written complaint by that Court or by an officer of the Court authorized in writing for this purpose, or by some other Court to which the Court is subordinate. Therefore, the Tahsildar, before whom the caste certificate was fraudulently obtained, is the competent person to file a written complaint or authorize an officer to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 196 of the IPC. In the present case, the police have submitted a charge sheet not only for the offence punishable under Section 196 of the IPC but also for offences punishable under Section 420 of the IPC and the offences punishable under the Prevention of Atrocities Act. 19. The Apex Court, in the case of Bandekar Brothers Private Limited and Another vs. Prasad Vassudev Keni and Others (2020) 20 SCC, has ruled that it is equally important to remember that if, in the course of the same transaction, two separate offences are made out, one of which falls under Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., and it is not possible to split them, the procedure under Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. must be then followed. Although the petitioners herein are charged with other offences under Section 196 of the IPC, cognizance of the offence can only be taken on a written complaint by that Court, as stated under Section - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2903 WP No. 104945 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 103310 of 2022 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent (Directorate of Civil Enforcement) in Madhukar v State, By Hosanagara Police, Crl.P. No. 2346/2014 : DD 26.04.2019 is distinguishable, as in that case, the coordinate bench of this Court had not referred to the provisions contained in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. 20. Accordingly, petitions are allowed. 21. The impugned proceeding in Spl.C.C.No.98/2022 pending on the file of II Addl. District and Session Judge, Bagalakot is hereby quashed. 22. The order dated 18.02.2019 passed by the Addl. District and Session Judge, Gadag, taking cognizance for the offences alleged in respect of Spl.SC/ST Crime No.51/2018 registered by Ron Police Station is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE TIN Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53