HALADHARA KARJI Vs. DILESWAR SUBUDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- The petitioner is the accused in Complaint Case No. 1 of 1987 pending before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Parlakhemundi and has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the order of cognizance taken by the Magistrate under Ss.197, 417 read with S.511 of the Indian Penal Code by his order dated 23-2-87. The Complainant-opposite, party filed a complaint alleging therein that the petitioner is the local M.L.A. and he was authorised by the State Government to issue caste certificates certifying the students of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes for receiving pre-matric scholarships. During the academic session 1986-87 applications were invited from the Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste candidates for grant of such pre-matric scholarships and in the meeting held on 30-11-86 when the applications were scrutinsed, it was found that the accused petitioner had given certificates to some of the applicants without indicating the castes or tribe of the respective students. The Committee, therefore, rejected those applications. It is the further allegation of the complainant that the accused attempted to deceive the Government and tried to induce the committee to disburse the pre-matric scholarships to the Scheduled tribe and Scheduled cast candidates and thereby committed the offence under S.417/511, I.P.C. Further by issuance of such certificate, the accused committed the offence under S.197, I.P.C.

(2.) The learned Magistrate on receiving the complaint on 5-1-87, posted the matter to 8-1-87 far recording of the initial statement of the complainant and the initial statement of the complainant was recorded on 8-1-87. Thereafter the Magistrate decided to hold an enquiry under S.202, Cr. P.C. In the said enquiry, one witness was examined. Ultimately by order dated 23-2-87, the learned Magistrate after perusing the initial statement of the complainant as well as the statement of the witness recorded under S.202, Cr. P.C. came to the conclusion that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused under Ss.197 and 417 read with S.511, I.P.C. and accordingly took cognizance under those sections and summoned the accused to appear before him. It is this order of taking cognizance which is being assailed in the present application.

(3.) Mr. Panda, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in order to attract S.197 of the India Penal Code the certificates in question must be required by any law to be given and the person why issued the certificates has issued the same knowing or believing the same to be false in any material point. The expression "required by law" refers to some statutory requirements and there being no statutory requirement requiring the M.L.A. to issue certificates in question, S.197. I.P.C. cannot have any application. The learned counsel further contends that the entire materials on record as well as the ultimate conclusion of the learned Magistrate only establish one fact that the accused issued those certificates without spacifying the caste or tribe to which they belonged. That by itself does not warrant the conclusion that the certificates are false in any material point and the accused issued the came knowing or believing them to be false and therefore S.197, I.P.C. is not at all attracted. I find sufficient force in the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. S.197 of the Indian Penal Code came up for consideration in one of the earliest decisions of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Girendra Nath Chatteries v. Umananda Mukherjee, AIR 1926 Cal 258 : (1926 (27) Cri LJ 182). In that case a certificate issued under Rule 18 of the Post Office Saving Bank Rules was under consideration. It was held by their Lordships that the certificate contemplated by S.197 is a certificate which is required by law to be given or signed for the purpose of being used in evidence in the course of administration of justice. The certificate given under Post Office Savings Bank Rules cannot he construed to be a certificate either under any statute or any statutory rules made thereunder and therefore, to such a certificate, S.197, I.P.C. cannot be attracted. The matter again came up for consideration before the Calcutta High Court in the case of Prafulla Kumar v. Emperor, AIR 1943 Cal 40 : (1943 (44) Cri LJ 292) whereunder a medical certificate came up for consideration. It was held by the Court that what S.197 contemplates is that the certificate should be under some provision of law and be admissible in evidence as such certificate without further proof. A medical certificate is not per se evidence of the illness of a person certified to be ill therein and such a medical certificate therefore, is not a certificate relating to any fact of which such certificate is by law admissible in evidence. The issuing and user of a medical certificate in a criminal proceeding stating contrary to the fact that the accused was ill would render neither the accused nor the issuer of the certificate liable under S.197 of the Indian Penal Code. In a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dasarathi Sarangi v. State of Orissa (1987) 1 Orissa LR 263, the certificate issued by the M.L.A. indicating the caste or tribe, of the person was considered for the purpose of finding out its admissibility and conclusiveness in a proceeding under Regulation 2 of 1956. It was held by their Lordships : "Opposite party No. 4 produced a caste certificate and the original authority as well as the appellate authority have determined the question on the basis of the caste certificate. The caste certificate under no provision of law was conclusive evidence of the fact whether opposite party No. 4 belonged to Scheduled Tribe. The question has to be decided by the authorities on the materials on record before them." In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of a Bench decision of this Court as well as the law laid down by the Calcutta High Court referred to supra, a caste certificate issued by the M.L.A. for the purpose of enabling the students to obtain pre-matric Scholarships cannot be held to be certificates within the meaning of S.197 of the Indian Penal Code, and, therefore the first contention of Mr. Panda must be sustained.