Back
Erroneous Invocation of Section 125A RPA at Stage Held Curable:
In a significant ruling regarding criminal procedure, the has clarified that a Magistrate’s error in taking under an incorrect legislative provision does not automatically the proceedings, provided the court maintains the requisite to address the underlying offence.
The bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, addressed a petition filed by Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda, who had challenged criminal proceedings initiated against her for alleged suppression of assets in her municipal election affidavit.
The Background of the Dispute The legal battle originated from a filed by one Velji Namori Maheshwari, who alleged that the appellant had failed to disclose multiple agricultural properties owned by her husband during her bid for a councillor seat in the Bhuj municipal elections. Following this, the took of the matter under (RPA), and issued summons to the appellant.
Mrs. Dafda sought to the order before the , arguing that the RPA specifically pertains to Parliamentary and Assembly elections and is inapplicable to local body polls. However, the High Court declined to set aside the proceedings, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
Challenging the Scope of Election Law Before the Supreme Court, the appellant’s counsel reiterated the jurisdictional overlap, asserting that the RPA does not govern municipal elections, which fall under the purview of state legislation. Furthermore, defense counsel argued that the do not obligate a candidate to disclose assets held solely by a spouse.
The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the latter claim. Examining the affidavit format, the bench clarified that the duty to disclose extends to assets of the candidate, their spouse, and dependents. It emphasized that the phrasing of the disclosure rule is intended to be inclusive, and punctuation within the prescribed affidavit should not be misinterpreted to create exclusions for sole-ownership assets.
as a The core legal question focused on whether citing the wrong statute (RPA) at the point of rendered the Magistrate's Order null and void. Relying on , the Court held that is taken of an "offence" rather than the specific statutory section.
Justice Karol, writing for the bench, underscored that as long as the magistrate has the power to take of the alleged offence, an error naming the wrong act is a "." The Court noted that such errors do not necessitate quashing unless they result in a "."
Key Observations
The judgment highlighted the importance of preserving the integrity of the election process:
*
"It is a well-settled principle of law that
is taken of the offence and not people."
*
"The error in taking
under the wrong Section is, in fact, a curable defect so long as the Court that has taken
has the power to take
of the other Sections also."
*
"If the issue is that a false affidavit has been filed in the electoral process, that is an offence against society at large and has to be investigated."
The Road Ahead Rather than quashing the case, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Magistrate. The order mandates that the lower court take fresh under the proper legal provisions—likely referring to relevant sections of the , such as those regarding filing false information before a public servant—and proceed in accordance with the law.
This decision serves as a stern reminder that while procedural correctness is vital, minor technical errors at the threshold of a trial will not act as a shield for those accused of against public trust.
