The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict interpretation of the penal provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the lack of prima facie evidence and the abuse of the process of the Court in continuing the prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

VINAY JOSHI, J.

1. Heard. ADMIT.

2. The matter is taken up for final disposal by consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

3. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) the applicant/accused is seeking to quash the charge-sheet bearing SCC No. 329 of 2014 arising out of Crime No. 3026 of 2014 registered with the Dattapur Police Station, District Amravati for the offence punishable under Sections 171-H, 188 of the Indian Penal Code(for short ‘IPC’) and Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’).

4. The facts in brief are that the applicant was contesting parliamentary elections in the year 2014. During the election period, Police Station Dattapur set up the check point at Mangrul T Point. The Police intercepted a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration no. MH-27-U-1515 driven by co-accused Manoj Dhatewar. During search, cash amount of Rs. 4.75 lakh, two liquor bottles and election material in the form of stickers of the political party have been found. The said vehicle was used in election campaign for the applicant’s candidature. The Police took custody of cash amount and articles, on which Tahsildar has lodged the report, resulting into registration of crime.

5. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Manohar would submit that even if the prosecution case is accepted at its face value, none of the provisions would attract, meaning thereby no prima facie case has been made out. He took us through the Sections invoked by the Police to impress that they does not fit in the facts of the case.

6. The charge-sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Section 123 of the Act and Section 171-H, 188 of the IPC. With the assistance of both side, we have examined one by one penal provision sought to be invoked. Section 123 of the Act is not a punishable Section, but it merely defines a term ‘corrupt practices’. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Manohar would submit that in terms of Section 77 of the Act, every candidate is bound to maintain an account of election expenses. Moreover, in terms of Section 100(1)(b) of the Act it is one of the ground for declaring election to be void. In short it is submitted that Section 123 of the Act does not attract penal consequences under the Act itself. The State has not pointed out whether the act of ‘corrupt practices’ has any penal consequence under the Act. Moreover, it is not a case of prosecution that applicant was indulging into corrupt practices at the time of parliamentary elections. In consequence invokation of Section 123 of the Act is wholly unjustifiable.

7. Section 171-H of the IPC bears some relevance which is about illegal payments in connection with the election. Section 171-H of the IPC reads as below:

“171-H. Illegal payments in connection with an election - Whoever without the general or special authority in writing of a candidate incurs or authorises expenses on account of the holding of any public meeting, or upon any advertisement, circular or publication, or in any other way whatsoever for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of such candidate, shall be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees:

Provided that if any person having incurred any such expenses not exceeding the amount of ten rupees without authority obtains within ten days from the date on which such expenses were incurred the approval in writing of the candidate, he shall be deemed to have incurred such expenses with the authority of the candidate.”

8. This Section makes it illegal for anyone, unless authorized by a candidate, to incur any expenses in connection with the promotion of the candidate’s election. The plain language employed in the Section conveys that, it can be invoked against the others than the candidate acting without the authority of the candidate. Section makes the agents and others responsible for the specified acts done without authorization. The applicant being candidate h