[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1522 OF 2007 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Pandurang Nivrutti Chavan and Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for State Mr.Dilip Bodake Adv. for Respondents ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JUNE 10, 2008 DATE : JUNE 10, 2008 DATE : JUNE 10, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-State has preferred this application for leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Dist. Judge-4 and Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Case No. 114 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the Respondents-accused of the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. 2. I have heard the learned APP for the [-2-] Applicant-State and the learned Advocate for the Respondents-accused. I have perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned APP. 3. On perusal of the evidence, it is seen that there is delay in lodging FIR. The incident has occurred on 19.6.2005 and the FIR is lodged on 21.6.2005. The case of the complainant is that he did not have a caste certificate and he could procure the caste certificate only on 21.6.05, hence, there was delay in lodging FIR. However, it is an admitted fact that the caste certificate of the informant has not been produced. This fact falsifies the stand taken by the complainant. From this fact, it is also seen that no credible explanation has been furnished for the delay in lodging FIR. Moreover, one thing is clear from the evidence especially that of PW 4, that the complainant and the accused belong to rival political groups. The incident is alleged to have taken place on the day when election took place i.e. on 19.5.05. The counting of votes took place on 21.6.05 and group of complainant was defeated and group of accused was elected in that election, [-3-] therefore, defence of the accused seems probable that on account of losing the election, the complainant filed a false case against the accused persons. 4. The learned counsel for the Respondents-accused submitted that the caste of the complainant has not been conclusively proved. A Division Bench of this Court (R.M.S.Khandeparkar and Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, JJ.) in the case of Subhadra Sushil Anand and others Vs. State of Subhadra Sushil Anand and others Vs. State of Subhadra Sushil Anand and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and another Maharashtra and another Maharashtra and another in Criminal Writ Petition No.1019 of 2007 decided on 13.9.2007, has held that it is only when the accusation with an intention to insult or intimidate or to humiliate has been made by a person not belonging either to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and addressed to the person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, and such incident occurs in public view, only in that case, he could be said to have committed an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the said Act and not otherwise. Obviously, therefore, if the complainant has not been able to conclusively prove that he belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, it would not disclose an [-4-] offence in terms of the said section. 5. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Dist. Judge and Additional Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. No interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal, is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]