CRIMINAL REvlsION No. I? g £906 x" /, REVISION UENDER SECUQN 397 READ WI'I'H SECTION 401 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 APPLICANT : Dulori Rom Koushik, Aged 63 years, ACCUSED S/o’ Madhulal Kaushik, R/o’ Samqipuri, o?‘ €9’ \ PS. Hirri, Dis’rrid Bilaspur (CG) At PresenT a6“ ,«Ja}4% at; hexga R/o. Civil Lines, Balodo Bozar, Roipur, g 1 / ,,/ .gw *5? x//‘«" KO 0&9» DisTricT Rqipur (CG) i VERSUS NON-Ahucgam‘ Sfm‘e of Chha’n‘isgorh, Through: Police SToTion Romkolo, DisTricT Surgujo (CG) WW @YM [W 26 W9; 00 WWW W®1§R EgaWW‘ 30 03 2006 Apphcan‘l' Dulam Ram Kaurhik by VShr-i Manoj‘ Pmfa‘n‘jpe, Advocafe S+a1'e by 5hr: Ashush shukl ,,6overnmenf Advocafe Argumenfs were fmally hea foday a This reVIsuon Is direcfed ag msf The order dafed 1701 2006 passed by 5hr! BL Tldke Spe In! Judge Scheduled Cash & Scheduled TmbeJPrevenfIon of frocrhes) Act Ralpur' m Specml Sessions Case N03111/2005 wher by charges under Sec‘l'ions 409, 420, 467 read wifh 120-3 of I.P.C. and under Secfion 3 (2) (v) of *he Scheduled Casie & Scheduled Tri e (Prevemion of Afracifies) Acf, 1989 (hereinafier referred 1‘0 as applicant. If is alleged fhal fhe ap licanf, one Kenjram Verma and ’ Tuneshwar Prasad Soni vfraudulen ly wl‘rhdrew fhe amount lying af fhe balance of G.P.F. amounf of ne Kodan Sav Manhare, a member - of ‘lhe Scheduled Casfe by furn hing bagus withdrawal slipsand applications. A wri‘H'en complainf lodged on 26.2.2004 by Kodan 50v Manhare a1‘ The Police Siai‘i Baloda Bazar A'H'er comple'l'ion of inve’s‘i'igai'ion prosecu‘iion was nched againsf ihe applican‘i and - iwo oihers menfioned above und r Sections 409 420 467 read ’v wifh 120-3 of I.P.C. and under Sec ion 3 (2),(v) of The Ac‘i'. he Acf‘) were framed against ‘l‘he s o u XLHC—22 mm WW ;»‘ Vude order dafed ’17 2006 learned Special (Afroclfues) Raupur framed ch ges under fhe aforesaid sechons v againsf The aPphcanf herein, Ke Jram Verma and Tuneshwar Prasad Soni. 5hri Manoj Paralgpe, lea ned counsel for fhe applicant; has 'suEmiffed oi the very oufsef f a‘i he would only assail The framing l of charge unaer Seérion 3 (2) (v of The Ad agqinsf the applicant in . This revision. Elacing reliance o ‘ Masum'dia Hosanasha Musa/man v, 5ra¢e of Maharashm reporr d in Au; zooo s¢ 1876 and —. repor‘red in A.I. $.C. 665, learned counsel ‘foh lha applicanl' comendea l‘hal‘ there was absolufely nofhing’ fo show ‘r cf ‘l'he applicam had camm'n‘fed The alleged dffenae on lhe basis 1' al Kodan Sav Manhar'e belongs fo Soheduled Caste cofegory or hnf lhe omoun‘r lying in his 6,P.F. accounf belonged 1'0 a’member f fhe Scheduled Caste. He argued ‘ that to attracf the provisions o section 3 (2) (v) of the.Act the sine ‘qua non is that the victim sh uld be a person whovbelongs to a Scheduled Casfe or Scheduled ribe and 1‘ha1' ihe offence under #he Penal Code Is cemmlffed agains him on the basis thaf such person belongs fo Scheduled Casi-e or cheduled Tribe. In fhe absence of H such Ingredients the offence u der Section 3 (2) (v) is not made out «gums? the applicant I On th ofher- hand Shm Ashlsh Shukla Judge R. 2000 f . /, I XI-HC-22 WWW Wm I W 2m 'mm mawfw WW WWW %€“IWR Imam _3’ K $WW order. Having heard the nival eon? nfions and :affer,~perusing The record, IL am of *he considered'opi ion tha+ this revision deserves 1‘0 Joe allowed. ‘If is sefi'led law fha‘i in .order‘fooifrac? fhe provisions‘of Section 3 (2) (v) of he 'Ac‘r, lfhe prosecuiion has f0 esi-ablish fhaf rrhe offences ‘puni able wi‘ih imprisonmenf for a 4 term of ten years or more agal st a person or property was commltted on the ground that s ch person Is a member of a ;» such’member; In the present case, the written complaint lodged by Kodan Sav Manhare on 26.2.2004 id also his statement recorded ‘under Secfion 161 Cr.P.C. does 0t even have a semblance of material to show that the offenc alleged was committedby the 7 applicant and fwo ofher' ’co-ac‘cuse on 1'he §rbund 111a? Ko'dan Sav Manhare is a member of Sched led Costeor since the amount deposited in his 6.P.'F..account bell nged to a member of Scheduled Caste.‘ Relying upon the jud ment rendered in Masumsha asanasha Musalman V. State of aharashfra reported in A.I.R. I 72000 SC 1876, in the absence-o the aforesaid conditions which are sine qua non for attracting ection 3 (2) (v) of the Act It cannot be said even prime facie f learngd Government Advocafe arg‘fd in support of the impngned v there ls material tofwEi/e/ H XI—HC’ZZ mm mafé?! Criminal Revision should also em and Tuneshwar- Pmsad Soni. Invr‘l'he. resuh‘ i'his revision (2) 1 (v) of fhe Acf framed agi Verma and Tuneshwar Pr'asad I is allowed. Charge under Secfion ,3 xins‘r the applicant herein, Kenjr-am “fudge vide oraer dated 1791. Soni passed by “the learned Special 111/2005 is sef aside. $ o ‘r'e To ’rhe co-acc‘used Kenjram Verma . 2006 in SpecialV'Sessions Case No. 5d]- l ,, ‘ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh 5 j Judge