The accused cannot be prosecuted for the offence under sec. 3(1)(ix) of the Act as the law did not exist at the time when the certificates were issued. The false caste certificates obtained by persons not belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe did not induce a public servant to take action against a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.

JUDGMENT :

Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J.

1. These two petitions have been disposed of by a common order. The facts of these two petitions are as below:

2. The petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition 989/2012 is the accused in Special Case No. 19/2008 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions (Special) Judge, D.K. Mangalore, facing trial for the offence under sec. 3(1)(ix) o f the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition 988/2012 is the accused in Special Case No. 23/2008 on the file of the same court for the same of fence. They were prosecuted for the said of fence on the allegation that they produced false caste certificates to show that they belonged to Marathi caste which comes under Scheduled Tribe category. Charge sheet was filed for the offence under sec. 3(1)(x) of the Act. The petitioners filed applications under sec. 227 Cr.P.C seeking their discharge. The court below by its order dated 22.8.2012 dismissed their applications and hence these revision petitions.

3. I have heard Sri Nataraja Ballal, learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 988/2012 and Sri Suyog Herele, learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 989/2012. I have also heard the learned Government Pleader.

4. Sri Nataraj Ballal and Sri Suyog Herele submit that the caste certificates were issued in the years 1977 and 1983. When these caste certificates were issued, the Act was not in existence, it enacted in the year 1989. It was not an offence at the time when the caste certificates were issued. The petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offence under sec. 3(1)(x) o f the Act. The second point of argument is that even assuming that the certificates are falsely obtained by the petitioners, the provisions of sec. 3(1)(ix) of the Act are not attracted. Their submission is that giving false information to obtain a caste certificate to the effect that the petitioners belonged to Scheduled Tribe does not amount to an offence within the meaning of sec. 3(1)(x) of the Act (as it stood before amendment) because there is nothing to show that by giving false information to a public servant, the petitioners intended to induce that public servant to cause annoyance to a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Moreover they submit that the matter is still pending before the District Caste Verification Committee and it has not taken any decision. In this view, charge sheet could not have been filed against the petitioners. The learned Judge of the trial court ought to have applied his mind that no offence is made out against the petitioners and therefore he should have allowed their applications under sec. 227 Cr.P.C. for discharging them. In support of their arguments, they have placed reliance on some of the judgments to which I will refer to later.

5. The learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the trial court is justified in dismissing the applications for discharge. It is clearly observed by the trial court that at the time of framing charge, only materials available on record should be considered to find out whether there is a case for framing of charge or not. It is not necessary for the court to consider whether the accused is going to be convicted or not and such a conclusion can be drawn only after holding trial. The trial court has referred to some of the authorities that the petitioners have now relied upon for dismissing their applications under sec. 227 of Cr.P.C. There are no infirmities in the order and therefore, these petitions deserve to be dismissed.

6. I have considered the points of arguments. So far as the petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition 988/2012 is concerned, the allegation is that the petitioner, though belonged to Konkani caste, gave false information to the Tahsildar that he belonged to Marathi caste for obtaining a caste certificate in or