Alleged False Caste Certificate Case: Karnataka HC Rejects State Appeal Over Missing Tahsildar Complaint Required Under CrPC Section 195

The prosecution alleged that the respondent, who did not belong to the Mogera Scheduled Caste community, gave false information to the Tahsildar, Sagar Taluk, on 7 May 1990 and obtained a caste certificate.

He was charged under Sections 177 and 181 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The case proceeded on a police charge-sheet; the trial court acquitted him after trial.

The State appealed and sought leave to appeal against the acquittal

Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC bars a court from taking cognizance of offences under Sections 172–188 IPC, including Sections 177 and 181, except on a written complaint by the public servant concerned or a public servant to whom that officer is administratively subordinate.

Although Section 2(d) CrPC, including its Explanation, deems a police report disclosing a non-cognizable offence to be a complaint, that deeming provision does not satisfy Section 195 where the required complainant is the concerned public servant or an administratively superior public servant.

In an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence is reinforced, and interference is warranted where the trial court’s view is perverse or not a possible view.

The Court noted that, as the appeal was pending on 1 July 2024, the CrPC continued to govern under Section 531(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Sections 177 and 181 IPC fall within the offences covered by Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC.

The alleged false information was given to the Tahsildar, who was the public servant concerned, but neither the Tahsildar nor an administratively superior public servant lodged a written complaint before the Magistrate.

The prosecution instead proceeded on a police charge-sheet, which could not meet Section 195’s requirement, even if treated as a complaint under Section 2(d)’s Explanation.

The cognizance and resulting proceedings were therefore vitiated.

Independently, the Court found no perversity or other basis to disturb the acquittal.

It held that cognizance on the police charge-sheet was barred by Section 195(1)(a)(i) CrPC and that the State had shown no ground to interfere with the acquittal.

Leave to appeal under Section 378(3) CrPC was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.