IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 158 OF 2010 IN STAMP NUMBER MAIN NO. 1547 OF 2010 STATE , THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR ... Applicant Versus M. IRDI DEVAN @ GULABI ... Respondent Shri C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Applicant. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 5th July, 2010 P.C.:- The State seeks leave to appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Heard Shri C. A. Ferreira, the learned Public Prosecutor. The complaint-Exh.13 was filed by Shri Manohar alias Babu Azgaonkar, a MLA and I assume that it was filed against the accused for having abused him though the center of controversy is also one Smt. Anita Redkar/PW4. Prosecution had examined eight witnesses in support of the charge and the learned Special Judge, after considering the evidence produced has come to the conclusion that there was no convincing evidence to prove that the said complainant was of Chambhar Caste, and this conclusion is based on the fact that the certificate issued to him was issued based on his own affidavit and was not issued by the Scrutiny Committee. The learned Special Judge has placed reliance on the case of Ravindra G. Umale and others v. State of Maharashtra(2007(2) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 405) but the law now is well settled with the decision of the Full Bench in Mrs. Pushpa Vijay Bonde v. The State of Maharashtra(2009 Cri. L.J. 3204) wherein it is held that merely because the caste of the accused is not mentioned in the FIR stating whether he belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, it cannot be a ground for quashing the complaint. After ascertaining the facts during the course of investigation it is always open to the investigating officer to record that the accused either belongs to or does not belong to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, and after final opinion is formed, it is open to the Court to either accept the same or take cognizance. Be that as it may, on the assessment of evidence produced, the learned Special Judge has doubted whether the FIR-Exh.13 was at all lodged on 18-11-2005 as stated by him and the learned Special Judge has come to the conclusion that it was filed on 19-1-2006 when it was registered as Crime No.16/06. It appears that, as stated by Dy. S.P. Tony Fernandes/PW7, there was political rivalry between the complainant Shri Azgaonkar, the present Chief Minister and Smt. Anita Redkar. The said Anita Redkar had lodged a N.C. complaint on 18-8-2005 but on the early morning of 19-8-2005 she had changed it into a complaint of abusing her on caste and as her complaint was not registered a big morcha was brought by the complainant and his supporters and after discussions, FIR was registered on the said complaint of the said Smt. Anita Redkar on 28-6-2005 after a gap of about seven days but it was treated as 'C' Summary. According to Dy. S.P. Tony Fernandes/PW7, complaint-Exh.13 was filed on 19-11-2005 and thereafter the matter was discussed with his superiors. The offence was registered. This explanation on the part of Tony Fernandes/PW7 has been found by the learned Special Judge as an afterthought since Shri Santosh Dessai/PW6 who was the Police Inspector of Margao Town Police Station was totally silent about it and there was no document whatsoever on record to prove the same. The learned Special Judge has come to the conclusion that if really the complaint was filed on 19-11-2005 then Santosh Dessai/PW6, the Police Inspector would have sent it to the S.D.P.O. Tony Fernandes/PW7 on the same day as he could not have looked into it. The learned Special Judge therefore came to the conclusion that the fact that the offence was registered on 19-1-2006 and the fact that on the same day Police Inspector Shri Santosh Dessai handed over the investigations to SDPO Shri Fernandes/PW7 go to show that the typewritten complaint dated 19-11-2005 was not filed on that day but was filed on 19-1-2006 itself i.e. after a delay of two months when it was registered. The learned Special Judge has therefore concluded that there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and also recording the statement of witnesses which in some cases is more than two months and the same cast a serious doubt on the truthfulness of the case of the prosecution. The view held by the learned Special Judge is a plausible view and calls for no interference. This is not a fit case to grant leave to appeal. Application is therefore hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.