Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 36871
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
KRISHNA S DIXIT, J
SRI. B G UDAY – Appellant
Versus
SRI. H G PRASHANTH – Respondent
CRL.RP.NO.1157 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. UDYA HOLLA, SRI. SANTHOSH S NAGARALE
For the Respondents: SRI. MANJUNATH H.
A candidate is required to disclose pending criminal cases only if charges have been framed, failure of which cannot constitute an electoral offence under the Representation of the People Act.
Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 125A - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 397 r/w 401 - Electoral offence of failing to disclose pending criminal cases - Requirement of disclosure pertains only to cases where charges have been framed - Petitioner was convicted for not disclosing pendency of a case against him; however, no charges were framed in the pending case - Courts below failed to appreciate legal provisions correctly - Impugned orders set aside as they disallow rightful interpretation of statutes concerning candidate disclosures. (Paras 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11)
Findings of Court:
The conviction and sentence against the petitioner were quashed due to the absence of required disclosures, reinforcing the need for clarity regarding the disclosure of criminal antecedents in nomination papers.
Issues: The main issue was whether the requirement to disclose criminal antecedents extends to cases without framed charges, culminating in incorrect convictions based on the misinterpretation of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the obligation to disclose criminal cases arises solely when charges have been framed, reaffirming that processes must adhere strictly to statutory definitions and stipulations.
Result: Petition allowed; prior orders set aside.
ORDER
Petitioner is invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this court vested u/s.397 r/w Sec.401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for calling in question the Sessions Judge’s order dated 11.09.2023 dismissing Criminal Appeal No.1303/2022 and thereby confirming the order of conviction & sentence 13.10.2022 made by the learned XLII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.30758/2021 (Spl.C.C.No.764/2020). To put in succinctly, petitioner after trial was convicted for the electoral offence punishable u/s 125A of R.P. Act, 1951 and was sentenced to undergo a Simple Imprisonment for two months coupled with levy of Rs.10,000/- by way of fine; petitioner’s appeal against the same came to be negatived.
2. SUBMISSION OF PETITIONER’S COUNSEL:
Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Uday Holla appearing for the petitioner briefly submitted that the penal provision enacted in section 125A of the 1951 Act needs to be construed strictly and if that is done, no offence can be alleged against his client; the legal requirement to disclose pendency of criminal case arises only when such a case has attained a particular stage and not otherwise; this aspect having been wrongly approached by the courts below, the impugned orders are liable to be voided, notwithstanding that the findings therein are concurrent. In support of his submission, he pressed into service certain Rulings of the Apex Court.
3. SUBMISSION OF COMPLAINANT’S COUNSEL:
After service of notice, the respondent having entered appearance through his counsel opposes the petition with vehemence making submission in justification of both the orders and the reasons on which they have been constructed. The gist of his submission is: the revisional jurisdictional is too restrictive and therefore a deeper examination of the impugned orders cannot be readily undertaken, two courts having concurrently held against the petitioner; whether the charges are framed or not, the candidate in the electoral fray has to disclose pendency of criminal cases and the petitioner having failed to do so, has been rightly convicted & sentenced. He read out two decisions extracted in the order of the Appellate Court, in support of his submission.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(a) Section 125A of the 1951 Act has been brought on the Statute book by the Parliament vide Act 72 of 2002 w.e.f. 24.08.2002. It intends to bring in purity & transparency in the election process by providing necessary information to the public in general and the voters in particular so that the latter can make an ‘informed decision’ by knowing inter alia the criminal antecedents of the candidate in the electoral fray. The said provision reads as under:
“125A. Penalty for filing false affidavit, etc.—
A candidate who himself or through his proposer, with intent to be elected in an election,—
(i)fails to furnish information relating to sub- section (1) of section 33A; or
(ii)gives false information which he knows or has reason to believe to be false; or
(iii)conceals any information, in his nomination paper delivered under sub-section (1) of section 33 or in his affidavit which is required to be delivered under sub-section (2) of section 33A, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.”
(b) Apparently, the above provision prescribes a punishment of imprisonment ‘which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.’ Thus, the discretion lies with the court awarding the punishment. This provision internalizes inter alia sub-section (2) of Section 33A of the 1951 Act. Section 33A has the following text:
“33A. Right to information.—
(1) A candidate shall, apart from any information which he is required to furnish, under this Act or t
