In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-13166 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:27.7.2010 Gurmail Singh alias Gaila .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. A.S. Klar, Advocate for the complainant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petition has been filed under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest in complaint case No.38 dated 22.9.2008 (Annexure- P.2) titled as Lal Singh v. Gurmeet Singh and others pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur. Respondent No.2 Lal Singh has filed a complaint (Annexure- P.2) alleging commission of offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (`Act' – for short) and under Sections 452 and 323 IPC. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner himself is a member of the Scheduled Caste and, therefore, he is not liable to be punished for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act for Cr. Misc. No.M-13166 of 2010 [2] which he has been summoned vide order dated 30.7.2009 (Annexure-P.4). Besides, it is submitted that being a complaint case custody of the petitioner is not required for the purposes of investigation. In support of his contention that the petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Caste learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the certificate dated 13.10.2005 (Annexure-P.1). In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that being a complaint case the custody of the petitioner is not required for the purposes of investigation. Learned counsel for the complainant, however, submits that the certificate (Annexure-P.1) which has been issued is not in accordance with the Govt. of India letter No.35/1/72-RU(Act V) dated 2.4.1975 which provides for issue of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes certificate. It is submitted that sub-para (iv) of para 1 of the said letter requires that if the person claims to be a Scheduled Caste, he should prefer (sic. - profess) either the Hindu or the Sikh religion; besides, it is submitted that sub-para (ii) of para 1 envisages that where a person claims to belong to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by birth it should be verified that the community is included in the Presidential Orders specifying the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to the concerned State. This is having not done it is submitted that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of being a member of the Scheduled Castes. It is also submitted that Tehsildar, Sangrur who has issued certificate (Annexure-P.1) is not authorized to issue such a certificate. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. The petitioner, as already noticed, has been summoned vide order dated Cr. Misc. No.M-13166 of 2010 [3] 30.7.2009 (Annexure-P.4) passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur on the complaint (Annexure-P.2) alleging commission of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act The petitioner has not been summoned in respect of the offences under Sections 452 and 323 IPC. The complaint qua the same has been dismissed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint under the Act is not maintainable against the members of the Scheduled Castes is not devoid of merit. Section 3(1) of the Act provides for punishment for offences of atrocities. In terms of sub-section (1) thereof it is provided that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, commits any of the acts mentioned in clauses (i) to (xv) is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine. Therefore, in terms of Section 3(1) a complaint would be maintainable only against those who are not members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner has submitted a certificate (Annexure-P.1) issued by the Tehsildar, Sangrur whereby it has been certified that the petitioner belongs to Majhbi Sikh caste which has been recognized as a Scheduled Caste as per the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. Therefore, the Majhbi caste of Sikh religion is duly mentioned. The said caste is recognized as a Scheduled Caste as per the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. As such, it cannot be said at this stage that the petitioner is not a member of the Scheduled Castes. Therefore, the complaint against him is prima facie not maintainable. The Tehsildar has issued the certificate and it is not shown by the learned counsel for the complainant as to who else is the competent authority to Cr. Misc. No.M-13166 of 2010 [4] issue such certificates in respect of the members of the Scheduled Castes. Besides, the custody of the petitioner is not required for the purposes of investigation. In the circumstances, the interim bail granted on 6.5.2010 is made absolute. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. July 27, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*