sat 1 wp 474-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 474 OF 2011 Jagdish Kutti Amin ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Rishikesh Mundargi i/b. Mr.Balasaheb Yewale for the Petitioner. Mr.A.S. Gadkari, APP for the State. Mr.Nihar Ghag for Respondent No.4. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. JULY 12, 2011 P.C. :- 1 We have heard Mr.Mundargi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2 A limited prayer made for directions to lodge a criminal complaint against respondent no.4 Shri Subhash Kanta Sawant under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De- notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, sat 2 wp 474-2011 Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000. 3 The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste certificate dated 1st November, 2006 issued in favour of respondent no.4, by its order dated 2nd September, 2008, and Writ Petition No.6447/2008 challenging the said order came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 1st October, 2008. As per the petitioner, respondent no.4 is required to be prosecuted for obtaining a false certificate and deriving benefit on the basis of such a certificate. 4 If that be so, Section 11(2) of the Act of 2000 states that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 11 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the Scrutiny Committee or by any other officer duly authorised by the Scrutiny Committee for the said purpose. We have perused the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee sat 3 wp 474-2011 and it does not authorise any other officer including the officer who has issued the caste certificate to file a criminal complaint against respondent no.4. The petitioner erroneously approached the Nayab Tahasildar, Sindhudurg, and the said officer rightly vide his letter dated 27th October, 2010, informed the petitioner that he has to approach the Scrutiny Committee. We agree with the same view inasmuch as it is the Scrutiny Committee who has to initiate the criminal complaint or in the alternative, authorise an officer to file such a complaint. 5 The learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to apply to the Secretary of the Scrutiny Committee concerned. 6 Leave granted and the petition is disposed as withdrawn with liberty to apply to the Scrutiny Committee to initiate a criminal complaint under Section 11(2) of the Act of 2000 against respondent sat 4 wp 474-2011 no.4. 7 If such an application is filed within two weeks from today, we direct the Secretary of the Scrutiny committee to decide the said application within two weeks from its receipt. (U.D. SALVI, J) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J)