Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kishore Samrite Judgement Given By: ... on 23 April, 2014
M.Cr.C. No.12925/2010
23.04.2014
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
applicant/State.
Heard on admission.
The State has preferred the present application for grant
of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 29.09.2010
passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balaghat (M.P.) in
Criminal Case No.448/2005, whereby the respondent was
acquitted from the charge of section 177 of the I.P.C. and section 125-A(2)(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter it would be referred as the Special Act).
The prosecution's case in short is that the respondent filed his nomination as a candidate for parliamentary election on 12.04.2004. In his nomination application as well as in affidavit he did not mention about the Special Case No.10/2003 which was pending before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Balaghat for offence under sections 376(2) and 506 of the I.P.C. and section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Collector and District Magistrate, Balaghat has sent a report to the S.H.O., Balaghat and also to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balaghat and thereafter a charge sheet was filed.
The respondent abjured his guilt. He took the plea that he had supplied the entire information which was required according to the provisions.
After considering the prosecution's evidence the learned J.M.F.C. has acquitted the respondent from all the charges.
After considering the submissions made by learned Panel Lawyer and looking to the documents Ex.P-5 to Ex.P-7, which were the nomination forms, affidavit in format-26 and an affidavit, it would be apparent that the respondent was not convicted for any offence and, therefore, no information relating to conviction was required to be given by him according to the provisions of section 33-A of the Special Act, then the respondent was required to give the information relating to the criminal case which was pending and was punishable with sentence of two years or more and the charges were framed in that case by the competent court. It is true that a Special Case was pending against the respondent at the time of submission of his nomination papers and affidavit but the prosecution failed to prove that at that time the charges were framed against the respondent. Under such circumstances, the trial Court has rightly held that the respondent was not liable to give such an information of the case according to the provisions of the section 33-A of the Special Act. It was for the prosecution to file the copy of the order-sheet of the concerned court for that order by which the charges were framed against the respondent. If the charges were not framed in that case, then he was not liable to give any information about that pending case.
Under such circumstances, the acquittal directed by the trial Court appears to be correct. There is no basis by which any interference can be done in the order passed by the learned trial Court. If leave is granted, then appeal cannot succeed.
Under such circumstances, the present application under Section 378(III) of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant/State for grant of leave to appeal is hereby dismissed.
Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information along with its record.
(N.K. Gupta) Judge psmishra