Patna High Court - Orders
Manan Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Bihar on 4 September, 2014
Author: Ashutosh Kumar
Bench: Ashutosh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.43136 of 2011
======================================================
Manan Kumar Mishra Late Shiv Chandra Mishra R/O,Vill.-Ward No.-
15,Behind Of Pradhan Post Office,P.S.-Town,Dist.-Gopalganj
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ashutosh Tripathy, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 04-09-2014Heard Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 09.05.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gopalganj in connection with Baikunthpur P.S. Case No. 117 of 2010 whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 171-F, 171-H and 188 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case is that in the Election Campaign, the petitioner as a candidate used more number of banners and flags than what was permitted to him by the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43136 of 2011 (3) dt.04-09-2014 2/4 Returning Officer. This was in violation of Election Model Conduct Rules, leading to instant prosecution under the aforementioned sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 171-H provides for illegal payments in connection with an Election. The Section reads as hereunder "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 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43136 of 2011 (3) dt.04-09-2014 3/4 candidate, he shall be deemed to have incurred such expenses with the authority of the candidate".
Similarly, Section 171-F provides for punishment in undue interest for personation at an election.
"Punishment of
undue influence or
personation at an election -
Whoever commits the offence
of undue influence or
personation at an election
shall be punished with
imprisonment of either
description for a term which
may extend to one year or
with fine, or with both.
From bare reading of the aforesaid two sections of the Indian Penal Code, it would become very clear that assuming that the allegations made in the First Information Report are ex-facie true, no offence would be made out.
As far as Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it provides for disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, in his capacity as a candidate of National Party, was given permission to hold meeting. Since the number of banners and flags exceeded limits of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43136 of 2011 (3) dt.04-09-2014 4/4 permission which was earlier granted, the petitioner is sought to be prosecuted under the aforementioned sections. In this connection, it has been stated that the banners and flags are not brought to the election meeting by the candidate himself. If supporters of the petitioner, without their being any knowledge of any such limit having been prescribed, brings such banners and flags, the petitioner cannot be fastened with any criminal liability. That apart, the petitioner himself was not aware of any further order which was promulgated by any public servant. In that view of the matter, even section 188 of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable to the facts of the case.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the order taking cognizance is fit to be quashed. Accordingly, the order dated 09.05.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gopalganj in connection with Baikunthpur P.S. Case No. 117 of 2010 is set aside.
The application stands allowed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Jagdish/-
U T