- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7942 CRL.RP No. 200068 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200068 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MALENDRA SWAMY S/O VEERAYYA SWAMY, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: MEDICAL PRACTITIONER, R/O IKALKI VILLAGE, TQ. ALAND, DIST. KALABURAGI …PETITIONER (BY SRI BASAVAPRABHU PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH-585107. (THROUGH BRAHAMPUR P.S., KALABURAGI, DIST. KALABURAGI) …RESPONDENT (BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA YADAV, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 (CR.PC.) OLD OF READ WITH 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.11.2022 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7942 CRL.RP No. 200068 of 2022 DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI, IN CRL.A.NO.13/2021 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 30.01.2021 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KALABURAGI IN C.C.NO.1505/2010 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 AND 198 OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.11.2025 COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CAV ORDER The present Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment dated 09.11.2022 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Crl.A.No.13/2021, whereby the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.01.2021 passed by the Court of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi in C.C.No.1505/2010. By the said judgment, the petitioner was convicted for the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7942 CRL.RP No. 200068 of 2022 offences punishable under Sections 420 and 198 of the IPC. 2. The petitioner has questioned the legality and correctness of the conviction primarily on the ground that the prosecution itself is vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 7 and Rule 7-A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Rules, 1993. FACTS OF THE CASE: 3. The factual matrix, briefly stated, is that the PI of the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement (DCRE), Gulbarga lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner had furnished false information claiming that he belonged to the Beda–Jangama caste, a notified Scheduled Caste, though he in fact belonged to the Linga Jangama/Veerashaiva community. Based on the said allegation, it was asserted that the petitioner obtained a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7942 CRL.RP No. 200068 of 2022 false caste certificate dated 08.12.1987 and secured admission into the MBBS course at MahadevappaRampure Medical College under the Scheduled Caste quota. On the basis of the complaint, Crime No.47/1997 came to be registered and after completion of investigation, charge- sheet was filed. 4. Before the Trial Court, PW-1, the complainant, deposed that in the year 1987 he came to know about the alleged forged caste certificate. He relied on school records of St. Joseph’s School and Nutan Vidyalaya, which contained caste entries of the petitioner as “Hindu” or “Hindu Swami”, whereas the school records of the petitioner’s siblings indicated “Hindu Veerashaiva Lingayat”. 5. PW-2, a retired Revenue Officer, stated that he was informed on 15.12.2008 by the DCRE that the petitioner’s caste certificate stood cancelled. PW-3, an Assistant Clerk, deposed to the effect that the cancellation - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7942 CRL.RP No. 200068 of 2022 of the petitioner’s caste certificate had been published, and that the original certificate lacked necessary attestations. 6. The petitioner examined himself as DW-1 and contended that he belonged to the Veerashaiva-Jangama community under the RambhapuriPeetha, and that locally the community also referred to as “Beda-Jangama” or “Aigolu”. He asserted that the initiation of proceedings was illegal as the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 7 and 7-A of the 1993 Rules had not been followed, and that the DCRE had no jurisdiction to directly register an FIR or investigate caste verification matters. He also relied on the order passed in W.P.No.18012/1989 where this Court had held that no authority other than the Caste Verification Committee could cancel a caste certificate after constitution of committees. 7. It is the principal contention of the petitioner that no enquiry as contemplated under Rule 7 of the 1993 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7942 CRL.RP No. 200068 of 2022 Rules was conducted by the District Caste Verification Committee before initiating prosecution. Rule 7 mandates a detailed enquiry by the Committee and a reasoned order either validating or rejecting the caste claim. Only on rejection of the claim, the order is required to be forwarded to the DCRE under Rule 7-A, and only thereafter the DCRE may initiate prosecution. 8. It is argued that in the present case, DCRE suo motu registered the FIR without any jurisdiction and in complete violation of the sequential statutory machinery prescribed under the Rules. Reliance is placed on the coordinate Bench decision in Smt. Jayashree v. State, Crl.P.No.15335/2013, wherein it is held that DCRE cannot initiate criminal prosecution unless and until it receives the report of the District Caste Verification Committee rejecting the caste claim. 9. It is further contended that the alleged cancellation of the caste certificate in 1989 was by an - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7942 CRL.RP No. 200068 of 2022 incompetent authority and was already subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.18012/1989, where this Court held that no parallel authorities could cancel caste certificates once verification committees were constituted. Lastly, it is contended that school records merely showing “Hindu” or “Hindu Swami” cannot lead to the inference that the petitioner did not belong to the socio-cultural group known as “Beda-Jangama”. 10. The learned HCGP contends that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have relied on multiple school admission records (Ex.P-4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19) which describe the petitioner’s caste as “Hindu” or “Hindu Swami”, and that the cancellation of the caste certificate was made public and was done prior to the formation of the verification committees, and therefore was valid. It is further contended that the DCRE had conducted a detailed enquiry in accordance with internal guidelines and that the conviction does not suffer from any legal infirmity. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7942 CRL.RP No. 200068 of 2022 11. Heard the learned Senior counsel and learned HCGP POINT FOR DETERMINATION: 12. The principal question that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution launched against the petitioner is vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 7 and Rule 7-A of the 1993 Rules, and consequently whether the conviction recorded by the Courts below is unsustainable in law? 13. Rule 7 and Rule 7-A prescribe a mandatory and sequential statutory procedure. Rule 7 of the 1993 Rules mandates that whenever doubt arises regarding the validity of a caste certificate, the matter shall be referred to the District Caste Verification Committee, which is required to conduct a detailed enquiry by examining school records, birth registers, public documents, local circumstances, and such other relevant materials. Only - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7942 CRL.RP No. 200068 of 2022 upon such enquiry can the Committee pass a reasoned order either affirming or rejecting the caste claim. 14. Rule 7-A clearly provides that only upon rejection of the caste claim, the Committee or the appellate authority must forward a copy of the order to the DCRE, and only thereafter the DCRE is empowered to initiate steps for prosecution. 15. Thus, the statutory scheme is neither optional nor directory. It is hierarchical, sequential, and mandatory. DCRE is not the primary verifying authority. It is only the executing agency empowered to prosecute after the competent Committee has first completed its statutory role. 16. The legal position is no longer res integra. The coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Jayashree v. State, Crl.P.No.15335/2013, has categorically held that: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7942 CRL.RP No. 200068 of 2022 “Only after the enquiry under Rule 7 by the competent District Caste Verification Committee, the Committee or the appellate authority shall send its report to the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement and thereafter only, the Directorate shall take steps to prosecute. Without there being any such direction, the Directorate has no jurisdiction to directly investigate and file charge-sheet.” 17. This judgment squarely governs the present case and is binding on this Court. The prosecution launched directly by the DCRE without awaiting the report of the District Caste Verification Committee is therefore entirely without jurisdiction. It would be relevant to extract Para 11 to 14 of above judgement. Relevant extract reads as under: "11. Now coming to the other important aspect with regard to the circular issued by the Government on 30.06.2007 and also notification or circular issued by the Corporation City of Gulbarga dated 21.08.1989, this particular aspect is no more res- integra by virtue of the decision of this Court in W.P.No.18012/1989 and connected matters, dated - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7942 CRL.RP No. 200068 of 2022 27.01.1995, wherein the said notification dated 21.08.1989 was called in question. Though this petitioner was not a specific party to the said proceedings but a Samstha constituted for the welfare of the Mala Jangam, Beda Jangam, Budga Jangam Samaja Samstha have filed petition before the Court in the said case. In the said case, similar set of facts were involved. The Court at paragraph-2 has culled out the categories of cases pending before the High Court which are as follows: “(i) Cases where caste certificates had been issued, but subsequently withdrawn, cancelled or suspended; (ii) Application for caste certificates have been rejected on the basis of the impugned circulars, but subsequently caste certificates have been issued pursuant to the interim orders granted by this Court and in some cases, interim orders have not been granted. (iii) Applications for issue of caste certificates are still pending. (iv) Prosecution has been launched on the basis of the C.O.D. reports that caste certificates have been obtained by playing fraud.” 12. So far as this case is concerned, item Nos.1 and 4 are applicable. In this case also caste certificate had been issued by the Corporation City Gulbarga and subsequently, on 21.08.1989, the same has been cancelled in an omnibus circular - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7942 CRL.RP No. 200068 of 2022 issued by it. In fact, the said Circular dated 21.08.1989 issued by the Corporation City Gulbarga was the subject matter in the High Court in the above said writ petitions. After analyzing the circular issued by the Government from time to time and also the notification issued by the different authorities, the Court has ultimately held in the following manner: “The Supreme Court having examined the question of recognizing the caste status of a person and prescribed the procedure thereto, the entire matter will have to be re-examined in that light. Therefore, the learned Advocate General submits the State will constitute a Committee as contemplated in the said decision and that Committee will be free to decide the same and unhampered by any of the circulars issued by the Government. In view of this undertaking given, it is not necessary to quash the impugned circulars. All that needs to be noticed is, the Committee to be constituted as directed by the Supreme Court shall not be bound by any of the circulars. The learned Advocate General also submits that such Committee will be constituted within a period of six weeks from today. Recording his submission, these petitions will have to be disposed of. Whatever may have been the stage of proceedings, whether the certificates have been issued, cancelled, suspended or whether any certificates have been issued pursuant to the interim orders granted by this Court or applications for issue of caste certificates are pending before the authorities or cases where prosecution has been launched on the basis of the C.O.D. reports shall all be governed by this order and any interim order granted by this Court shall enure to the benefit of the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7942 CRL.RP No. 200068 of 2022 petitioners during the pendency of the proceedings before the concerned Committee. Notwithstanding the endorsement given to the petitioners, the matter shall be reconsidered by the said Committee irrespective of the circulars issued by the Government. Similarly where applications have not been disposed off the concerned officers shall bear in mind the said decision of the Supreme Court and dispose off the applications without reference to any of the circulars. The authorities concerned have got to dispose of the matters as expeditiously as possible. Depending upon the outcome of the proceedings before the authorities, further steps have to be taken including continuation of prosecutions.” 13. The above said observation made by this Court abundantly makes it clear that after constitution of the committee by the government, there cannot be any circulars be issued empowering any parallel authorities either to cancel the certificate, suspend the certificate or to pass any orders with regard to the genuinety of such certificates. Therefore, the argument of the learned High Court Government Pleader that the Government has issued notification dated 30.06.2007 stating that caste certificates issued prior to 1993 can be cancelled by the same authorities holds no water. The Government has absolutely no power to issue such circular in utter disregard to the decision rendered by this Court. Perhaps, having come to know of this aspect, the government vide its further - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7942 CRL.RP No. 200068 of 2022 Notification No.¸ÀPÀE 44 J¸ïJr 2008 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ dated 06.05.2009 has cancelled the earlier notification dated 30.06.2007. 14. Therefore, looking from the above said facts and circumstances, so far as this case is concerned, as I have already narrated that Caste Verification Committee has not at all decided the genuinety, falsity, fakeness or forgery of the caste certificate pertaining to the petitioner. The complaint itself shows that the Deputy Commissioner-cum- President of the Committee has simply closed the case of the petitioner. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement to initiate the proceedings as per Rule 7-A of the Rules only after getting the report from the District Caste Verification Committee. Respondent No.2 is at liberty to initiate the proceedings if necessary, only after any report is received by him under Rule 7 of the Rules." 18. It is evident from the records and from the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 that: i. No reference was ever made to the District Caste Verification Committee. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7942 CRL.RP No. 200068 of 2022 ii. No enquiry under Rule 7 was conducted. iii. No reasoned order rejecting the petitioner’s caste claim was passed by the Committee. iv. No order of such nature was forwarded to DCRE as required under Rule 7-A. 19. On the contrary, the FIR was registered by the DCRE suo motu in 1997 based solely on a complaint, which is wholly impermissible. Thus, the very initiation of prosecution is ultra vires the 1993 Rules. 20. The cancellation of the caste certificate in 1989 was admittedly done by an authority other than the Caste Verification Committee. This Court in W.P.No.18012/1989 has already held that after constitution of verification committees, no parallel authority can cancel a caste certificate. Even otherwise, such cancellation cannot substitute for the statutory enquiry mandated under Rule 7 and Rule 7-A. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7942 CRL.RP No. 200068 of 2022 21. Therefore, the prosecution cannot take shelter under the said cancellation. The failure to follow the mandatory procedure strikes at the root of the proceedings. 22. It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that where the very initiation of proceedings is without jurisdiction, all consequential actions stand vitiated. The Courts below failed to consider this jurisdictional defect and proceeded to evaluate evidence on merits, which was wholly impermissible. 23. In the present case, the prosecution having been launched contrary to the mandatory provisions of law, the entire proceedings are rendered null and void. The conviction recorded on the basis of such illegal prosecution is therefore unsustainable. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7942 CRL.RP No. 200068 of 2022 CONCLUSIONS AND REASONS FOR REVERSAL OF CONVICTION 24. The learned Magistrate has committed a patent error in construing Exhibit–P2 as an “enquiry report of the District Caste Verification Committee”. A plain reading of Exhibit–P2 unequivocally demonstrates that it is merely an endorsement issued by the Gulbarga City Corporation, purporting to cancel the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, purportedly based on a Government Circular dated 30.06.2007. Exhibit–P2 does not emanate from the District Caste Verification Committee nor does it reflect any enquiry contemplated under Rule 7 of the 1993 Rules. 25. Exhibit–P2 is not a statutory order under Rule 7.Exhibit–P2 does not disclose .constitution of the District Caste Verification Committee,conduct of any enquiry as mandated under Rule 7,examination of documentary or oral evidence, orpassing of a reasoned order rejecting the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7942 CRL.RP No. 200068 of 2022 petitioner’s caste claim.Therefore, Exhibit–P2 cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be treated as a valid or legal determination of caste status under the statutory scheme. The prosecution relies upon a circular dated 21.08.1989 issued by the Gulbarga City Corporation, by which caste certificates issued to various individuals, including the petitioner, were purportedly cancelled. Such exercise of power by the Corporation is wholly without jurisdiction once the statutory framework for caste verification was in place. 26. The aforesaid Corporation Circular dated 21.08.1989 was quashed by this Court in W.P.No.18012/1989, the relevant portion of which has been extracted supra. This Court categorically held that after constitution of the Caste Verification Committees, no parallel or subordinate authority can cancel or annul caste certificates. Consequently, the very foundation on which Exhibit–P2 rests stands judicially nullified. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7942 CRL.RP No. 200068 of 2022 27. Both Courts proceeded on an erroneous premise of “valid cancellation”.The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have proceeded to convict the petitioner on the erroneous assumption that the caste certificate issued in his favour stood validly cancelled. This assumption is contrary to the statutory scheme under the 1993 Rules,the binding judgment in W.P.No.18012/1989, andthe settled law that only the District Caste Verification Committee is competent to adjudicate caste status. 28. Admittedly, no enquiry under Rule 7 was ever conducted by the District Caste Verification Committee, nor was any order rejecting the petitioner’s caste claim passed and forwarded to the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement under Rule 7-A. In the absence of such statutory determination, the initiation of criminal prosecution itself is without authority of law. 29. The findings recorded by both Courts below are in direct conflict with the binding judgment of the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7942 CRL.RP No. 200068 of 2022 coordinate Bench in Crl.P.No.15335/2013 (Smt. Jayashree v. State), wherein it is held that:the authority which issued the caste certificate has no power to cancel or suspend it after constitution of the Verification Committee, and prosecution by DCRE can be initiated only after a valid rejection of caste claim by the competent Committee.Ignoring this binding precedent has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. 30. Treating Exhibit–P2 as a valid caste verification enquiry and relying upon an invalid cancellation order amounts to perverse appreciation of evidence, as the Courts below have relied upon materials which are legally non-existent in the eye of law.When the very basis for alleging false caste claim is founded on an illegal and non- est statutory cancellation, the entire prosecution collapses. A conviction resting on such illegal foundation cannot be sustained. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7942 CRL.RP No. 200068 of 2022 31. The errors committed by the Courts below are not mere errors of appreciation but go to the root of jurisdiction and legality, warranting interference under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. 32. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution launched against the petitioner is wholly without jurisdiction and in clear violation of Rule 7 and Rule 7-A of the 1993 Rules. The Courts below committed serious error in sustaining such prosecution. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner cannot be allowed to stand. 33. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment dated 09.11.2022 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7942 CRL.RP No. 200068 of 2022 Kalaburagi in Crl.A.No.13/2021, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.01.2021 passed by the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi in C.C.No.1505/2010, is hereby set aside. (iii) Consequently, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1505/2010 arising out of Crime No.47/1997 are quashed. (iv) The petitioner is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. (v) It is made clear that this order shall not preclude or come in the way of the competent authorities from initiating fresh proceedings, if so advised, strictly in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Rule 7 and Rule 7-A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Rules, 1993. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 51