KAILASH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput at Jeypore dismissing Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2003 filed against the order dated 6.01.2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Koraput in I.C.C. No. 62 of 2002 taking cognizance of offence under Section 3(l)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(2.) The opposite party No. 2 lodged an F.I.R. before the Damanjodi Police Station alleging therein that on 18.1.2002 he and some other office bearers of NALCO Employees Union had gone to the office of the petitioner, but they were asked to go out and to meet the C.M.D. It is further alleged in the F.I.R, that the petitioner told the opposite party No. 2 that the opposite party No. 2 has got the service by virtue of a caste certificate. Basing on such F.I.R. investigation was taken up and final form was submitted stating that the case is a false one. After receipt of the final form the learned S.D.J.M., Koraput issued notice to the opposite party No. 2 and on receipt of notice, a protest petition was filed which was registered as I.C.C. No. 62 of 2002. After the protest petition was filed, inquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C. was taken up and during such inquiry three witnesses including the informant/complainant opposite party No. 2 were examined and thereafter the learned S.D.J.M. by order dated 6.1.2003 took cognizance of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. and ST. (P.A.) Act. Challenging the said order the petitioner moved the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput in a revision and the said revision having been dismissed, the present application under Section 482. Cr. P.C. has been filed.

(3.) Shri Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the orders passed by both the Courts below solely on the ground that even accepting the complaint allegation to be true, no offence under Section 3(l)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. (P.A.) Act is made out. According to Shri Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner the only statement alleged to be made by the petitioner is that the opposite party No. 2 has entered into service on the basis of a Scheduled Caste certificate. Even accepting that such a statement was made by the petitioner, there is nothing to show that by making such a statement, the petitioner has intended to insult or insulted the opposite party No. 2. The learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of MA. Kuttappan v. E. Krishnan Nayanar and another.