THE SPECIAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY OFFENCES COMMITTED BY BOTH SITTING AND FORMER MPS AND MLAS PROVIDED AS ON THE DATE OF COMMISSION OF OFFENCE, THE ACCUSED WAS EITHER A MP OR A MLA.

JUDGMENT

U Durga Prasad Rao, J. - In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1/2018 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of cases against MPs & MLAs at Vijayawada.

2. The prosecution case briefly is that the petitioner/accused has submitted his nomination papers on 03.04.2009 as a candidate for election to the A.P. Legislative Assembly from 197-Penamaluru constituency. In the affidavits in Annexure-1 and Form 26, he has deliberately suppressed the fact that C.C.No.99/2002 and CC.No.69/2002 were pending against him on the file of the Special Judge for Economic Offences Court at Hyderabad for the offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. While so, one E.A.S.Sarma, retired IAS Officer and public spirited person residing at Visakhapatnam coming to know about the alleged suppression of the information by the petitioner, made a complaint by e-mail to the Chief Election Commissioner, A.P on 26.07.2012. The Additional Chief Electoral Officer & Joint Secretary to Government of A.P. has forwarded the said complaint to the District Election Officer-cum-District Collector, Krishna on 06.08.2012. In turn, the District Collector forwarded the complaint to the complainant, who is the Returning Officer for Penamaluru Assembly Constituency-cum-RDO, Vijayawada for taking appropriate action. On verification of the affidavits filed by the petitioner and confirming the suppression of the material facts, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. before the I Metropolitan Magistrate at Vijayawada. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 125-A r/w 33-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and under Section 177 IPC against the petitioner/accused.

3. It seems PWs 1 to 3 were examined in that case. At that juncture, the case was transferred to the Special Judge for trial of cases against MPs and MLAs at Vijayawada, which was renumbered as C.C.No.1/2018. Predominantly challenging the Special Court's jurisdiction, the petitioner filed the instant criminal petition on the contention that the petitioner was neither an elected MP nor MLA on the date of the alleged offence i.e., 03.04.2009 and therefore, his case could not have been transferred to the Special Court. Of course the petitioner inter alia contended that complaint was time barred and that having regard to the stipulation in Section 33-A & 125-A of the Registration of the People Act, 1951 and Section 177 IPC, no offence was made out by the prosecution.

4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner Sri K.Ramamohan, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

5. The main plank of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as on the date of alleged offence i.e., 03.04.2009 when he filed nomination papers, he was neither a MP nor a MLA but only an aspirant for MLA of Penamaluru constituency. Therefore, even assuming that he withheld or suppressed certain information with regard to his involvement in two criminal cases deliberately, the resultant criminal case has to be tried by the jurisdictional Magistrate but not by the Special Judge for trial of cases against MPs and MLAs. He vehemently argued that the Special Court for trial of criminal cases relating to elected MPs and MLAs, Vijayawada was established by virtue of G.O.Rt.No.250 dated 03.04.2018 for trial of offences against elected MPs and MLAs either present or past provided as on the date of offence, the accused was either a MP or a MLA. Since the petitioner was not an elected MP or MLA by the date of nomination, which is the date of offence, his case cannot be tried by the Special Court. On this main argument, he prayed to quash the criminal case No.1/2018.

a) Nextly, learned counsel argued that the complaint was woefully barred by limitation. In expatiation, he would submit that the petitioner allegedly committed offences under Section 125A r