Karnataka High Court
Syed Isaq Ahmed vs State Of Karnataka on 20 April, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL 2010
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ARALI A'
CRIMINAL PETITION N().1322/_2_():"f1~-Si)' _ it it
BETVVEEN
Syed Isaq Ahmed
S/ o Late Shafiq Ahmed,
11 Cross, J.C.R. Extension, _ --
Chitradurga. -- Petitioner
(By Sri. Deepak, Adv.) Vi it
AND
State .. '
Represented by its .R.i1r'a_1ai'i?o»1'ice,
Chitradurga." _ V' i * Respondent
(By V'i_iayai{t1Invar&}'./Iajage, HCGP)
A 'cirivminai Petition is filed U/S 482 CI'.P.C
-prayi1'1g,"»to jqufash the entire criminal proceedings
pending 'before the I Add}. C.J. (Just and reasonable.
Dn;}..__&V_JMVFC., Chitradurga in C.C.No.815/09 against
the petitioner.
it 'i"~._'I'his Criminal Petition coming on for orders this
-the court made the following:
..........('\/*"""'=---*-
ORDER
The accused in C.C.No.8}5/2009, pending' file of the learned Additional Civil Judge ész': ' JMFC, Chiktradurga, has fi1ec1..~th.e_ pa;it:iont it under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking"'qu'sshin5g"o'f the proceedings in the said case, T
2. Though this matter'is.is*-__1iste'(i1~-_,tociay for admission, having regeircJl_e_t'o"th§e::n2iture,:of..the facts and circumstances of the chase'§u1d._the..re1ief sought for, it is taken "argurnents of Sri. Deepak, the letirnecl' the petitioner and Sri. Vijayiiumetr'-«Majaige, itheiefarned High Court Government he.é1rd--;------«"Perused the averments in the :.4"Re'eitai$ in Seizure Panchanama, the .m-*""""' ¢m staternenttofjaifitnesses, copies whereof are furnished by ' wthe leaiined counsel for the petitioner. Sri. Deepak, the learned counsel for the : peftitioner submits that the petitioner--accused is charge- sheeted for the offences under Sections 171E, 171H 8:
188 of IPC and under Section 133 of The Representation ~ of the People Act. 1951 (hereinafter referred to as_"the RP Act" for short} but the allegations in the and other material produced on record" ' investigating Officer do not prim-arfaeie against the petitioner for any 0f'a'the.A_tsaid:toffeflces therefore the entire proeeedirig>s"win thesai-dg case deserve V to be quashed.
4. it is alleged in the icoiinp1a.;n+;ip.aaiea 13.4.2009.
filed before by the Assistant '#39'-.,:Chitradurga Assembly C0r1sti"t.ue:1(:yV ' ., '
(i) The"Depulqsziiorninissioner and Returning 4;'Officer, Chitradurga, has issued permission c'o.ndueti"rig« a meeting of the workers to Janata Dal political party on *~.i'13.4';"2_,0po9 at 11.00 am. at Vinayaka Kaiayana Mantap in Chitradurga Town. The said permission was granted subject to Ecoridition that no arrangements for lunch or refreshments should be made to the participants of the said meeting. Despite, the said condition, arrangements were made by the organizers of the said meeting for ...y providing iunch and refreshments to the participants. Videograph is taken as to the' conducting of the said meeting, distribution"-Ti'-,p:"'~.
of food packets by the organizers meeting to all the workers opfpthe said « who participated in the petitioner herein viz., Syed it was the agent of theCandidate.__for_G.eriera1' Election to Chitradnrga '.._p_ParIiarnVentairy Constituency, .res-ponsible for conducting of the said ftlieeitirxgvviiisriolation of the condition i1'I";i.;pO:S(3_:C5 in"'theVor'(:ier granting"
the ijrneeting.
(ii) Cin ..s_aid_'cornp1aint the poiice regist'e1fed case in Crime No.2'z;9/zooo, the Chitradurga Rural 19.3., all th'e._s_aiC1 offences and issued FIR After completion of the in{re.stigati;on, chargewsheet came to be filed '' aga..in;sj_i:*the present petitioner for all the said Offences.
'___.....£'"""""""""
5. Section 171E of IPC provides that:
"Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment ofg"'~--._ either description for a term which extend one year, or with fine, or Provided that bribery by treating_--sh.aIi~.. t punished with fine only."
6. Bribery is defined under Sdctidong It says that, ( 1} VVhoeVer:
(ii) to any person i' with "of inducing him or other'. person to exercise any .,eiecto'ra--1-------right or of rewarding any 'peifson for having exercised any 1 " 'V f it right; or z {ii)Accepts either for himself or for any it . other person any gratification as a reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce any other person to exercise any Such right, commits the offence of bribery:
,»----~£'""*"'"'"""°'*~---' Provided that a declaration of public poiicy or a promise of public action shalt not be an offence under it section.
(2) A person who offers, orfiagrieesltocgiifegi offers or attempts to.A"-proc1;rt:,'A"' fa " it gratification shall '--b:e*~..bVdee"med it gratification;
(3) A person who'ob.ta1E--nsE'o:i" accept or attempts aV:'V'gratification shail be gratification, and a ipersogn aflgratification as a ddrnotiike Whatwhve does not intend for doing what he has not be deemed to have t " ,accepte_d thevlgratification as a reward.
' ..V'i'qu_ite clear from the provisions of Sections IPC that the above allegations in the Wsaid ucorniplhaint do not constitute the offence of bribery it defined under Section 1718 and punishabie under Section 171}: ofIPC.
G""""('~\'-'_"p'
8. Section 3.73.}! of {PC provides for punishrjnent for the offence of illegal payment in connection election. It reads as under zw "Whoever without the general or'"spe_c.ial~ authority in writing of a catndidate incurs or A' authorizes expenses on account " ' holding of any public Ine'eting,V' or advertisement, cjtrcular. "p.ub.licatio'n,. _.or.. in any other Way wi}a'LsoeVe2:r' ;t;oI=--.thpe'lpurpose of promotingpyor procur_ing.v'V_th_e of such candidate;'«.slftall be tine which may extendieits;fiveV:huntired._:1upees:
' person having incurred any not exceeding the 'v.te1~3._d"rupees without authority ...}go'bta.ins flwithinwtten days from the date on "vsuch expenses were incurred the i writing of the candidate, he shall '' bev_de:e;m:ed to have incurred such expenses it the authority of the candidate"
x As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for K petitioner, the above allegations in the complaint do not make out against the petitionepaccused any case of illegal payment by him to any person in connection with fim the said eiection. Therefore, the offence under Section 171H of {PC also is not made out against the pe--titio'ner; accused.
10. Further, Section 188__ punishment for disobedience -of ordertduiye. by public servant. It reads as _p "Whoever, order promulgat,ed._ _ by; that "ser'va,rit lawfully empowe§red5it:oV_ pro1r1uiga,tef;st1ehWorder, he is directed to;',absi;aiii"~.:fr:jn'i"ta act, or to tavkettvcertainH:;'fordte1~,.:"witiihcucertain property in his his management, disobeys Vstich dlireycltwion; p_ A sha1'I,"if--------such disobedience causes or cause obstruction, annoyance or of obstruction, annoyance or any person lawfuily employed, be piiriiished with simple imprisonment for a 'T «-term which may extend to one month or with it 'time which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both;
r-~('~'"""
and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tend to cause a riot-- or _.__ if affray, shall be punished with imprisonrnejnt if of either description for awterm extend to six months, or fine"which if extend to one thous'ar_id rupees, orl' both." ' 8
11. As could be seen thesiiplabove allfeigiations in the said complaint, it ipsflnot the prosecution that any ord'e'r"jp;:pti*1a.t by the public servant by the petitioner-
accused. : by the Deputy Commissioner, Officer permitting the political , '_ partj,i:.tio_ffcondi..ict' a.,__1mneeting of its workers cannot be held 'to"he order duly promulgated as is referred to uinfder 188 of IPC. Therefore, the above 'VV_»allegiationcsV in the complaint do not prima facie A V~:ff"con'si«:_itute the offence punishable under Section 188 of {EEC also.
12. The petitioner accused is alleged to have committed the offence under Section 133 of the RP Act. .-_-s'"'% The said Section provides for penalty for iliegal hiring or procuring of conveyance at Elections. It reads as under:
"If any person is guilty of any such corruptfllap practice as is specified in clause Section 123 at or in connection election, he shall be p1inisha_iole"
imprisonment which rnay:=__ extend to three' f , g f months and with finefp', _
13. The above allegationsin the said. do A not make out any case againstffc.:'thee~.petitio'ner%accused that he hired or procvulredffany for the purpose of for holding the said meeting on the said' data, place. Therefore, I am of the considered that even the offence under Section Act, is not made out against the 'pet'ition'er}'acc1;1s.ed.
Ifaving come to the conclusion that the .::ai}.eg_atio'ns in the said complaint which are supported .' the statement of witnesses recorded by the "fflnvestigating Officer during investigation do not prima facie constitute any of the offences punishahie under emwfwwm Sections 171E, 171H 8: 188 of IPC and under Sections 133 of The Representation of People Act, could be seen from the allegations in the "
find that they do not eonstituteanyé oéjtherp offence. Therefore, entire procee('iingsA'in the deserve to be quashed. Heneefithe 0RDERx The present Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby allowecilhg. entirélptroceedings in C.C.No.81 5/2oo9"ope1§<3:1ng 'it.-gm filebofflzthe learned Additional c1vi11'e.Iudge (.j:r.* Chitradurga, are hereby quashed , .....
ESEQE