SUSHIL KUMAR DUTTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three revisional applications have arisen out of three G.R. Cases namely, (1) 3059/75(A), (2)3059/75(B) and (3) 3059/75.

(2.) The prosecution case is that Shri Sushil Kumar Datta one of the present petitioners before us appeared in the Indian Administrative Service Examination in 1967 and in the application form of the said examination he mis-represented his caste by falsely declaring himself to be a 'Namasudra' and by such false declaration he claimed to be belonging to a scheduled caste community although as a matter of fact, he actually belonged to 'Barojibi' caste commonly known as 'Baroi' which is not a scheduled caste in West Bengal. By such mis-representation as to his caste he obtained the advantage of the relaxed standard of the examination prescribed for scheduled caste candidates. On the result of the examination held in 1967, Sri Datta was selected by the Union Public Service Commission for appointment in a Class I Central Service and he was actually appointed by the Govt. of India in Class I Customs and Central Excise Service against a vacancy reserved for the scheduled caste candidates. Grievance of the prosecution is that had Shri Sushil Kumar Dutta not mis-represented his caste he would not have been admitted in the said examination as a scheduled caste candidate by the Union Public Service Commission and also he would not have been appointed in the Class I Customs and Central Excise Service against a vacancy reserved for the scheduled caste candidates. Thus, according to the prosecution by making false representation as to his caste Sushil Kumar Datta cheated the Union Public Service Commission and the Govt. of India as well and is therefore guilty of the offence under S. 420 I.P .C. This is the subject matter of G .R. Case No. 3059/75(B).

(3.) Similarly, so the prosecution case runs, Shri Sushil Kumar Dutta appeared in the Indian Administrative Service in the year 1969 falsely mis-representing himself to be belonging to the scheduled caste community. On the result of such mis-representation of caste, the Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi admitted him in the Indian Administrative Service Examination in 1969 and issued in his favour an Admit Card for the said examination. On the result of 1969, examination, Shri Datta was selected by the Union Public Service Commission for appointment in the Indian Administrative Service under relaxed standard for scheduled caste candidates. The Govt. of India thereafter appointed Shri Dutta in the Indian Administrative Service in 1970 against a vacancy reserved for scheduled caste candidates and posted him in West Bengal Cadre of the I.A.S. Had the accused not falsely claimed to be a member of the scheduled caste, he would not have been selected in 1969 against the vacancy reserved for scheduled castes. Thus by making false representation as to his caste Shri Datta cheated the Union Public Service Commission and the Govt. of India and as such is guilty of the offence under S. 420 I.P .C. This is the subject matter of G.R. Case No. 3059/75(A). Thus for the alleged cheating on the two occasions that is to say, in 1967 and again in 1969, the abovementioned two separate cases were started against the accused. In both these cases, charges under S. 420 I.P .C. were framed against Shri Dutta. The accused pleaded not guilty in both the cases. His defence in both the cases was that he belonged to 'Baroi caste' which is a sub-caste of "Namasudra's in West Bengal and Namasudra is a scheduled caste under the Constitution of India. Shri Dutta denied that he made any false representation whatsoever as alleged by the prosecution. He denied that he cheated the Union Public Service Commission or the Govt. of India. In both the cases, the trial court concerned convicted Shri Dutta of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and also to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default for further six months R.I. Shri Dutta preferred two appeals before the learned Sessions Judge, Alipore. Shri P. G. Ghatak, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore heard the two Criminal Appeals namely, Appeal Nos. 40 and 41 of 1980 analogously and by his order dated 7-8-1982 upheld that conviction and affirmed the sentences as passed by the learned trial Judge.