1. This revision application challenges the legality and correctness of the order dated 30.5.2016 rendered in Criminal Revision No. 250 of 2015 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur. By this order, the learned Sessions Judge upset the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Court No. 6), Nagpur on 7.9.2015 thereby dismissing the complaint filed against the present revision applicant by the respondent and remanded the matter back to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur for consideration afresh in accordance with law. The learned Sessions Judge went a step further in directing not only original complainant, who is respondent in this revision applicant, to remain present before the trial Court, but also directed present revision applicant to do so on the day fixed by the learned Sessions Judge.

2. The facts giving rise to this revision application are, in brief, as under:

(i) The revision applicant is a politician and presently the Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra. The general elections to the State Legislative assembly were held in the State of Maharashtra in the year 2014. The revision applicant was one of the candidates who contested elections. He contested the elections from Constituency-52, South West, Nagpur, the State of Maharashtra. He submitted his nomination paper along with the requisite documents and affidavit in prescribed form, Form No. 26 as prescribed under Rule 4A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (“Election Rules” for short).

(ii) The affidavit filed in Form No. 26 contained a declaration regarding the information that revision applicant was required to submit mandatorily, in particular, the information in terms of Section 33A (1) and (2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, the “Act of 1951”). This provision of law required of the revision applicant to disclose information relating to any pending criminal case in which punishment prescribed was of imprisonment for two years or more, and a charge was framed by the Court of competent jurisdiction or those criminal cases in which he was convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more.

(iii) According to the respondent, the revision applicant did not disclose the information as required of him under subsection (1) of Section 33A of the Act of 1951. It was his contention that not only the information relating to pending criminal cases involving offences prescribing punishment of imprisonment of two years or more in which charge was framed, but also such cases in which cognizance was taken by the Court of competent jurisdiction as of the date of filing of the nomination paper was required to be furnished by way of declaration made on an affidavit in Form No. 26 by the revision applicant, which he did not. According to him, there were two such cases being RCC No. 343 of 2003 (Madanlal Parate v. Shashikant Hastak & ors) involving offences punishable under Sections 217, 218, 425, 466, 467, 468, 470, 474, 506, 109 read with Section 34 of IPC and RCC No. 231 of 1996 (Madanlal Parate v. Devendra Fadnavis) involving an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC in both of which though charge was not framed, the concerned Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur had taken cognizance which were not disclosed by the revision applicant.

(iv) It was also the contention of respondent that nondisclosure of these two pending criminal cases was in violation of Section 125A of the Act of 1951 and constituted an offence envisaged by this provision of law. The revision applicant pointed out this fact, firstly, to the Election Observer and then to the Returning Officer on 4.10.2014, but to no avail. The respondent also sent notices to the Returning Officer and Election Commission of India inviting their attention to the offence committed by the revision applicant under Section 125A of the Act of 1951. But, according to the respondent, no action whatsoever was taken,