:iS;i»s;- '^-^tk Wi-iW^KSSKttK. •:c^^:'l%"..^.-:%."'' w& ^ :»&..;••• l;».i1 l^^g^gt^ INTrfiiHlili!i(NaiiittWilfi8aiUBlEBBIMilB!lt.iiliBg|.::L[(^ ;Mt!-iMii(IBBIHB?i^; Nli.JwJBBSg: ^<aMiNltiRBiiSUlU8i—BB^6iofr :"' .^: ;M?; ^t :'uii:j,: i:,!js|;ia.liii '^ws^':f'KSS6w,S ,»»^:s^;i:?ij';ii!?!)lif^"ifnis ;©iai|)n'|]||!(m.W|ffiil<t:j(^©(J^63i(eaj|gj^ s^?:^|i''ui^^is^si3f^;:!i^^?l^|^NniSWSK WSSs %B^^%^%i8S:BII|i|Wi®ilMar;lfcMMWMII.illtNff Na «i<w'fei:^:13^®-^;.^!r;:^H:^:s:'.<.i^ ::E?|^^:@itiii^|^s/.; 'B(|(selia^:Baz<aty|:g£ij|j]3^Jjj:g|| ;,^@jiBi®fiiaia|EB©ss^;:: ^WiSi ^'^y w NOiM-iKf'n.lfflMiNT iffiP<Mi^8sKill%M8MSSi)g|||sgSari'i,^ $;::E:. •j;$,lJi,'g),::^:^.':,,^^.1;Migi6@l|K?i ^•<^^;NJII^S^i^oi ' 9 s fliV:|^l!@S®8|S^BggSI i%l.^(.l:.'I^:';;l!fiMSSKB3!i®':$i:I -REvisiewtBiiyBBIiStliSIMUSNfflBiBKffiiffi'iiiiglBIUIiUUgd jPRtffiBMKIIgBglSBBI ISMEBIR ^La; SK'ttl'Bia I8B »sssa sa 'tirStK M 88 XI-HC-22 sn^r^i l<-ii?fe:?niRt sb»<l*'ST .'c r'u ftiii^ lS*-'i "s^g -41'4id*!, ^ftws, (°<ni<i'i< ;.,J^; WKtlsh •<(<»> ^s^s' 200^ 31I^['5BII8]R'(to *M\^ WHvS ^ fest •(fSl^R '^gipgtisii^l 30.03;2006 Applicaant-&ular'i feam l^oushik by Shri 'Mgnoj Pararype, Advoccte. -Stdte by Shri Adiish Shi|<ld, Sovemment Advocate. Ar'guments:were finally h^ard today. This revision iSdirecteclfcgainsttheopderdated 17.01.2006 passed by Shri B.l..^Tidke,,5^ecidlJudge, Schecluted CtKte & 5che<iuled Trite (Prevention 6f, Atrocities) Act, Raipur in Specia| Sessions Case Nall2/2Q05 wfi|sreby charges iinder Sectioiis;!409, 4M, 467 read with 120-B ofI.P|C. ahd under Section 3 (2) (v) otthe Scheduled Caste & Seheduled TIribe?(Prevention af Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinarfter referred to a^s 'fhe Act') were .framed a9ajnst the applicant. It is alte9ed that the ^pplicant, ene Keryram-Vertna.and Tuneshwop Prascd Soni fnoudul^ntly iKithdrew the amount lying dt the balance of &.P.F..-amount |of orre Chd^ra Prok<Bh Kui^,^^ memberofthe Scheduled Cast!&|»jffurnjdiing bogus withill^iwa|^lips and apptkwt-ions. A^^ehco^ptairrt'N^lodged.on 28.2.2004 by ChandraPrakadi Kurre<rt •Hie'P^lice^Station/Baloda Bazar. .After contptetibn^of iiwe^i9<»tion, prc^ecutionwas Idunched a9ainst;the opplwantand two othersinentio^edaboveunde('SectiOns40^,420, 467read with 120-B of I.P.C. oind Urider^Section 3 (2)(v);ofth!6?Act. [1Eft^,^R9^ yA-: ^l XI-HC-22 311^1^3 K-tt* Sf^! ^•HT^ y^a ^^••S^-SSsS^ T^i^^^i^^^^ 'VSl •^WMV, »Ti1*<*is.1°«'lltl^ »ITWITshi<|ch sn^i^grw:'gftg 2-' Vide order dated lf.t.M06, leamed • Sp&cidl Judge (Atrocities), Raipur fr-amed c^arges under the aforesaid sections against the applicant herein, K^ Soni. Shri Manoj Pflpanjpe, le '^rafepft'T'ifi'reif'? teA <Iaitii< ^r sriigq sn^i ^njt-am Aferma and- TuneshiKff' Prasad M-ned cflunsel for the applicant; has submitted at the/ver'y outset •(hat he u»6yld only assoitthe framjng pf char9®u"dw Secfk>n 3 (2)(^) of th6 Actagain^ the (^plic<mt^^^^^ this reviston. Plaeing reliance 4" Masumdia fiasaiia^ia Musalmen v. Sfate of Mahmvahtra repor|ted jn A.I.R. 2000J SC 1876 and State of MP. v. S.BJohat't e^d others peported m A.I.R. 2000 the applicant contended that there rtiat the applicant had CommH'ted the <rt Chcmdra Praktah Kurre belongs to thot the amoynt lying in his 6J>.F. of the Sctieduled Caste. He ar^ued f sectton 3 (2).(v) of the Act the sine S.C. 665, learhed counset foit uras absolutely nothin9 toshow alleged offence on the bosis t^i Scheduled Coste c<rtegory,w *• dccount belorged to a member that to attract the provisions o|l yuff fwn is thafr tj;e victim sh^uld be d person who belotged to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled ITr'ibeandthat the offence under the Penal Code iscomfflitted (gcin^ belon9S to Scheduled Castaor such irqreclients, theoffenceu|ider5ection a(2)(v)isn<itmadeou^ t him on the basis thct such .persoh Schecltiled Tribe. In the obsence of 'J11.': i..' cgainst the applicant. On;tl^e other haml, 'Shfi Aishish Shuktia [1Eft^ ^a^ IPWI":TT" XI-HC-22 so^wgiT f?:iw3n^T sR'iffiHfN' e WHWI »>wch ^ST '^l'tilrt^, (STfly'KS, ftrtiyy 3)1^1 Hach V^ 200 f^RS sn^TCTgTWBfStr ~?-t learned Sover'nment Advocat order. Havirg heard the rival record the record, I am of the deserves to be allowed. It is the provisionsof Section 3 (2) fl establidi that theoffences puni^ of ten years or more against a theground that such person is Scheduled Tribe or such present case, the written co^j Kurre on 25.2.2004 and also hid 161 Cr.P.C.does not even hove oj the offence alleged wascommrtted co-accused on the 9round that of Scheduled Caste or since account belorged to a member judgment rendered in Maeum^a o|r'gued in support of the impU9ned propetfty Mefiaraditra reported in A.I.R^ the aforesaid conditions wfhicH 'Siectiori 3 (2) (v) of the Act, it *i'iiFd4)-< iTrefr^' tezt (RiRSR ^grf^ir 311^1 4ontentions and (rfter perusing the ]considered opinion that this revision ^ettled law that in order to ottroct ^)ofthe Act, the prosecution has to ii(shdble with imprisonmeiNt for a term ^erson or property was committed ori member of a Scheduled Caste or a belongs to such member. In the iplaint lodged by Chandra Prakash stotement recorded under Section semblance of materiat to show that by the applicant and two other IChandra Prakash Kurre is a member- the cunount deposited in his S.P.F. Scheduled Caste. Relying upon the Hasawidia Musalmfflf v^ State of otf . 2000 SC 1876. in the obsence of are sine fua non for ottrocting ;annot be swdwtsnprimafacie that f^- —^- (tft^iS^) XI-HC-22 sn^^qii R-lisbStI^T giiiffigfstT 3:^'3TPIRra', ^Tn'M'16, fqMIUy 3T1^7T t<?|ch *4rtR'n sh*<i<*i W[ 200 Rfc«d 3n^r?^nwnf?cT -4- The ch(|i^ colfena fr'ahie the there is mfliterial to show that committed an offence undep Sec'tli The test for fromirg a offence is welt settled by a established that in order to material produced by the pros^t touchstone thot if such materi(kl offence alteged against such pers^ Applying the aforesaid tes\ considered opinion that even if trial Court by the prosecution offence under Section 3 (2) (v) there is nothing to show that tl grouid that Chandra Prakash Kun or that the 6.P.F. account belonge{< Thus, the impu9ned order so far under section 3 (2) (v) of the ^ others namely Kenjram Verma an< to be set oside. Retying upon AsR.^aacl-others reported in 2(X considered opinion •that the beni +i<iT<'i41-< WMf ff fsc& <RrezTC ^srf^Tan^) dpplicont and tt»o others have |ion3(2)(v)oftheAct. )e ogainst a'person accused of an ofdecision. It is now well a char-ge against a person, the tcution has to be tested on the is taken at its fac&?value/the inwould be made out. to the present case, I om of the entire materiat laid before the Ipas taken at its face value, the |of the Act \s not made out since k offence was committedon the }e 'is a member of Scheduled Caste to a member of Scheduled Caste. |as it relates to framing of charge ^ct (gainst the applicant and two Tuneshwar Prasad Sonj deserves Va.irwu Samb^yya Naidu and olhers^f. Stateof ^ 3 Cri. L.J. 4433, I am of the ;fit of this order passed in thi^ \ faS£±. (tfliy^) —»—-::: XI-HC-22 3n^?T?)T f^iRTan^r 3iI)Wgf?cT ^hfle»it tnwTTgiinqi 7S? ^WITcpT, »T{)u'IS, Rldwy 3)1^1 ^a<h TRF •"•"•"•""•"""^ 200 Criminal Revision Aoutd also ond Tuneshwar Pr-asad Soni. In the result +his revisio (Z) (v) of the ^ct framed Verma and TuneAwar Prasad Jud9e vlde order dated .17.01 112/2005 issetaside. Rl<34 enpre to the co-accused Keryram Ver'ma Wilfepft-T IfflRTf ff feISt ifeZR ^>3I^IT3n^1 ^n is allowed. Charge under Section 3 <y|oinst the appticant berein, Kenjrom [Soni passed by thelearned Special (2006 in Special Sessions Case No. Sd(- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ; BIB i 'IKll Via ya!^