S.C. & S.T. Case - Non- filing of Charge sheet due to delay in obtaining Caste certificate from MRO as per guidelines issued under circular memo C.No.1762/C19/PCR/CUD/2004 dated 25.06.2008 - Not mandatory - if the complainant produced caste certificate - the investigation officer can act upon it , unless doubted it's genuine or in case complainant failed to produce the certificate - since the I.O. reported that he filed final report - writ was closed =Yakasiri Chinnaiah... Petitioner The State of A.P.,And others....Respondents =2014 (Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10897

 S.C. & S.T. Case - Non- filing of Charge sheet due to delay in obtaining Caste certificate from MRO as per guidelines  issued under circular memo C.No.1762/C19/PCR/CUD/2004 dated 25.06.2008 - Not mandatory  - if the complainant produced caste certificate - the investigation officer can act upon it , unless doubted it's genuine or in case complainant failed to produce the certificate - since the I.O. reported that he filed final report - writ was closed =
The action of the fourth respondent in not filing a charge sheet, in FIR
No.136 of 2013 dated 27.09.2013 on the file of the fifth respondent Police
Station, is questioned in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary, illegal and in
violation of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (for short, the 1995 Rules).  A consequential direction
is sought to the fourth respondent to file a charge sheet.=
In his affidavit dated 30.01.2014 the Superintendent of Police stated that
investigation has been completed; a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C was filed
before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kota, on 25.01.2014; and the said
report is yet to be taken on file. 
Guidelines of Police department 
The Memo in C.No.1762/C19/PCR/CUD/2004 dated 25.06.2008 contains the circular    
instructions issued by the Additional Director General of Police, CID whereby
suggestions have been made to the Investigating Officers of the manner in which
cases, under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the 1989 Act), and the Andhra Pradesh
(Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of 
Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short, the 1993 Act), should be
investigated.  Paragraph 2 of the said instructions relates to registration and
investigation and, clause (g) thereunder, requires the caste certificate of the
victim to be obtained, and the caste of the accused ascertained by the
Investigating Officer from the Mandal Revenue Officer, or the authority
concerned, during investigation in the case, preferably prior to the
apprehension of the accused in the crime.
whether the aforesaid
guidelines dated 25.06.2008 can be cited as a justification for the inordinate
delay in completion of investigation of complaints registered under the 1989
Act, and the failure to adhere to the statutorily prescribed time frame of
completing investigation of such complaints within thirty days.
conclusion 
It is only in cases where the complainant does not produce the community
certificate, in support of his claim to be a member of the Scheduled Castes or
the Scheduled Tribes, would the Investigating Officer be justified in seeking
information regarding his caste status from the concerned Mandal Revenue
Officer/Tahsildar.  Ordinarily a community certificate issued under the 1993
Act, reflecting the caste status of the complainant to be a member of the
Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, should be accepted, and investigation
should be completed as mandated by Rule 7(2) of the 1995 Rules.  It is only in
cases where the complainant does not produce the community certificate, or the
Investigating Officer has bonafide reasons to doubt the genuineness of the
certificate so produced, would he be justified in seeking information from the
Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar regarding the caste status of the complainant.
While the accused cannot be said to have committed an offence under the 1989 
Act, in case he also belongs to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, it
is for him to produce his community certificate, issued under the 1993 Act,
before the Investigating Officer when he is asked to appear before him in
accordance with Section 41-A Cr.P.C, or at any time thereafter.
Suffice it to
observe that, since a final report has now been filed, I see no reason to keep
the Writ Petition pending on the file of this Court, or to examine the
allegations made therein, any further.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. 
2014 (Feb.Part) judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=10897
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN            

WRIT PETITION No.36097 of 2013  

12-02-2014

Yakasiri Chinnaiah... Petitioner

The State of A.P.,And others....Respondents

Counsel for petitioner: Sri Syed Khader Mastan

Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for Home

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?CITATIONS:


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN            

WRIT PETITION No.36097 of 2013  

ORDER:                                        

        The action of the fourth respondent in not filing a charge sheet, in FIR
No.136 of 2013 dated 27.09.2013 on the file of the fifth respondent Police
Station, is questioned in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary, illegal and in
violation of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (for short, the 1995 Rules).  A consequential direction
is sought to the fourth respondent to file a charge sheet.
        The petitioner, a member of the Scheduled Castes, lodged a complaint with
the fifth respondent on 26.09.2013 stating that, at 7.00 PM, the sixth
respondent, (a person belonging to the Backward Classes), had attacked him with
a knife and had abused him in the name of his caste by uttering the words "mala
naa kodaka neeku inta bala ichhindi evadra", and made an attempt to kill him;
the seventh and eighth respondents had also abused him in the name of his caste
by uttering the words "mala naa kodaka rajakeeyalu neekenduku raa"; the accused
had tried to stab him with a knife in his stomach; the knife hit him on his
head, and he sustained bleeding injuries; and, in the meanwhile, the villagers
rushed to the scene of the offence, and saved him from the accused.  The
petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court contending that, though
the complaint was registered as FIR No.136 of 2013, investigation had not been
completed for nearly three months thereafter.
        In his affidavit dated 30.01.2014 the Superintendent of Police stated that
investigation has been completed; a report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C was filed
before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kota, on 25.01.2014; and the said
report is yet to be taken on file.  In his affidavit dated 11.02.2014, the
Superintendent of Police refers to a Memo dated 25.06.2008, issued by the
Additional Director General of Police, wherein the caste certificate of the
victim is required to be obtained and the caste of the complainant ascertained
by the Investigating Officer from the Mandal Revenue Officer, or the authority
concerned, during investigation.  The delay in investigation is attributed
largely to the failure of the Mandal Revenue Officers to forthwith furnish the
caste certificates of both the complainant and the accused.
The Memo in C.No.1762/C19/PCR/CUD/2004 dated 25.06.2008 contains the circular    
instructions issued by the Additional Director General of Police, CID whereby
suggestions have been made to the Investigating Officers of the manner in which
cases, under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the 1989 Act), and the Andhra Pradesh
(Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of 
Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short, the 1993 Act), should be
investigated.  Paragraph 2 of the said instructions relates to registration and
investigation and, clause (g) thereunder, requires the caste certificate of the
victim to be obtained, and the caste of the accused ascertained by the
Investigating Officer from the Mandal Revenue Officer, or the authority
concerned, during investigation in the case, preferably prior to the
apprehension of the accused in the crime.
Just as in the present case, in several other cases also Rule 7(2) of the 1995
Rules, which mandates completion of investigation of complaints registered under
the 1989 Act within thirty days, has been observed more in breach than in
practice on the specious plea that a letter has been addressed by the
Investigating Officer to the Mandal Revenue Officer, seeking information of the
caste status of both the accused and the victim; and no information has been
received from the M.R.O. in this regard for several months.
It is necessary for the Investigating Officer to ascertain the caste status of
both the complainant and the accused, as Section 3 of the 1989 Act would apply
only to offences committed by a member not belonging to the Scheduled Castes and
the Scheduled Tribes against a member of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes.  The question which necessitates examination is whether the aforesaid
guidelines dated 25.06.2008 can be cited as a justification for the inordinate
delay in completion of investigation of complaints registered under the 1989
Act, and the failure to adhere to the statutorily prescribed time frame of
completing investigation of such complaints within thirty days.
In this context it is useful to refer to the provisions of the 1993 Act to the
extent relevant.  Section 3 of the 1993 Act relates to an application being made
for grant of a community certificate.  Section 4(1) enables the competent
authority, on an application made to it under Section 3, to satisfy itself about
the genuineness or otherwise of the claim made therein and, thereafter, issue a
community certificate within such period, and in such form as may be prescribed.
Adequate safeguards are provided in the 1993 Act for cancellation of a false
community certificate (Section 5); for imposition of penalties where a community
certificate is obtained by furnishing false information, or filing a false
statement, or any other fraudulent means (Section 10); for the benefits, secured
on the basis of a false community certificate, to be withdrawn (Section 11); and
for imposition of penalty for securing appointment on election to political
offices etc., on the basis of false community certificates (Section 12).
Section 13 also prescribes the penalty to be imposed on any person or authority,
performing the functions of a competent authority under the said Act, if he
intentionally issues a false community certificate.
The 1993 Act not only prescribes a detailed procedure for grant of a community
certificate, but also for penal action being taken against the person who
obtains a community certificate by furnishing false information, and against the
officer who intentionally issues a false community certificate.
Section 91(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, enables any officer in
charge of the Police Station, if he considers the production of any document
which is necessary, to issue a written order to the person, in possession of
such a document, requiring him to attend and produce it before him.  Sections
41-A and 161 Cr.P.C enable the Investigating Officer to direct either the
accused or the complainant to appear before him for examination.  The aforesaid
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure empower the Investigating Officer
to direct either the complainant or the accused to produce their community
certificate issued under the 1993 Act.
It is only in cases where the complainant does not produce the community
certificate, in support of his claim to be a member of the Scheduled Castes or
the Scheduled Tribes, would the Investigating Officer be justified in seeking
information regarding his caste status from the concerned Mandal Revenue
Officer/Tahsildar.  Ordinarily a community certificate issued under the 1993
Act, reflecting the caste status of the complainant to be a member of the
Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, should be accepted, and investigation
should be completed as mandated by Rule 7(2) of the 1995 Rules.  It is only in
cases where the complainant does not produce the community certificate, or the
Investigating Officer has bonafide reasons to doubt the genuineness of the
certificate so produced, would he be justified in seeking information from the
Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar regarding the caste status of the complainant.
While the accused cannot be said to have committed an offence under the 1989 
Act, in case he also belongs to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, it
is for him to produce his community certificate, issued under the 1993 Act,
before the Investigating Officer when he is asked to appear before him in
accordance with Section 41-A Cr.P.C, or at any time thereafter.  The guidelines
dated 25.06.2008 cannot be so read as to flout the aforesaid statutory
provisions.
In the light of the aforesaid observations, the second respondent shall consider
whether revised instructions should be issued to Police Officers in the State
regarding the manner in which the caste status of the complainant/victim should
be ascertained.  The guidelines shall be in compliance with the provisions of
the Cr.P.C and the 1993 Act, and must also ensure speedy completion of
investigation as stipulated under Rule 7(2) of the 1995 Rules.
An additional affidavit is filed by the petitioner contending that, while a
final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C may have been forwarded to the
competent Magistrate on 25.01.2014, the original complaint was not enclosed
thereto.  Learned Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, would state that
the original complaint has been sent along with the final report to the
competent Magistrate and the petitioner's apprehension, to the contrary, is
unfounded.
In view of the submission now made by the learned Government Pleader for Home,
on instructions, I see no reason to delve further on this aspect.  Suffice it to
observe that, since a final report has now been filed, I see no reason to keep
the Writ Petition pending on the file of this Court, or to examine the
allegations made therein, any further.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.  The miscellaneous petitions
pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of.  There shall be no order as to
costs.
_______________________________    
(RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J)      
12.02.2014

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.