Karnataka High Court
Sri.Bandar Subhan Sab S/O. Imam Sab vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 March, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100328 OF 2019
BETWEEN
SRI. BANDAR SUBHAN SAB S/O. IMAM SAB
AGE:55 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. 1ST WARD PAKKANNANAVARA ONI,
KRISHNANAGAR, SANDUR TALUK,
BALLARI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. M. KALWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PSI, SANDUR P.S,
THROUGH ADDITIONAL SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.
2. D. F. BABU SAB S/O. FAKKUR SAB
AGE:41 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE/ZP MEMBER,
R/O. KRISHNANAGAR, SANDUR.
BALLARI DISTRICT -583101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1;
R2- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
2
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2018 IN
C.C.NO.1148/2018 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC
COURT, SANDUR, IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 125A OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, 1951
AND SEC. 177 OF IPC, INSOFAR AS PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.
2. Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C., alleging that petitioner in the nomination form submitted by him for contesting election for the post of member of Taluka Panchayath, did not disclose his shareholding worth Rs.5,100/- in Primary Agriculture Urban Co-operative Society Limited, Krishnanagar and as such, given false declaration in his nomination paper and thereby committed offences punishable under section 125A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short "the R.P.Act") and section 177 of IPC.
3
3. Learned Magistrate referred the compliant to the investigating officer under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and the police after investigation, filed charge sheet and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences alleged against the petitioner. Taking exception to the same, the petitioner has filed this petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of the R.P. Act are not applicable and hence, the complaint filed for the aforesaid offences is not maintainable. He further submits that the complaint was filed after lapse of one year from the date of filing of nomination paper by the petitioner and is not maintainable as specified under section 468(2) of Cr.P.C.
5. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent no.1- state submits that the petitioner having not disclosed information as required under section 125A of the R.P.Act, the learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences. Hence, he submits that 4 the petition is devoid of merits and sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is undisputed that the petitioner filed nomination paper for contesting election to the post of member of Taluka Panchayath. It is the allegation of respondent No.2 that the petitioner has not disclosed the information that he had obtained share worth Rs.5,100/- in a society and as such, committed the offence punishable under section 125A of the R.P. Act. The provisions of R.P. Act, are not applicable to the elections conducted under the provisions of Karnataka Grama Swaraj and Panchayath Raj Act, 1993. In the absence of any specific provision adopting the provisions of the R.P. Act, the charge sheet filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 125A of the R.P.Act is not sustainable in law.
5
8. Even otherwise, section 125A of the R.P.Act specifies that any candidate if fails to furnish information or gives false information which he knows or has reason to believe to be false or 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.
9. The complaint was filed after a lapse of more than one year from the date of filing of nomination by the Petitioner. Section 468(2) of Cr.P.C., bars taking cognizance of offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year beyond one year from the date of commission of offence. The punishment specified for offence punishable u/s 125 A of Cr.P.C., is imprisonment which may 6 extend up to six months. Hence, the cognizance taken after lapse of one year is barred by limitation.
10. For the foregoing discussion, the impugned proceeding requires to be quashed. Accordingly I pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition is allowed.
The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.1148/ 2018 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sandur is hereby quashed.
In view of disposal of the matter, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE YAN