Bombay High Court
Devendra Gangadharrao Fadnavis vs Satish S/O Mahadeorao Ukey on 3 May, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 BOM 37
Author: S . B. Shukre
Bench: S. B. Shukre
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Criminal Revision Application No. 94 of 2016
Applicant : Devendra Gangadharrao Fadnavis, aged about 46
years, Occupation - Social Worker, presently Chief
Minister, Maharashtra, resident of "Varsha",
Malabar Hills, Mumbai
Versus
Respondenta: 1) Satish s/o Mahadeorao Ukey, aged about 37
years, Occupation : Advocate, resident of
Parvati Nagar, Nagpur
2) State of Maharashtra
Shri Sunil Manohar, Senior Advocate and Shri Uday Dable, Advocate with
him for applicant
Respondent Shri Satish Uike in person
Coram : S. B. Shukre, J
Dated : 3rd May 2018
Oral Judgment
1. This revision application challenges the legality and
correctness of the order dated 30.5.2016 rendered in Criminal Revision
No. 250 of 2015 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur. By
this order order, the learned Sessions Judge upset the order passed by the
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:48 :::
2
Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Court No. 6), Nagpur on 7.9.2015 thereby
dismissing the complaint filed against the present revision applicant by
the respondent and remanded the matter back to the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur for consideration afresh in accordance
with law. The learned Sessions Judge went a step further in directing not
only original complainant, who is respondent in this revision applicant, to
remain present before the trial Court, but also directed present revision
applicant to do so on the day fixed by the learned Sessions Judge.
2. The facts giving rise to this revision application are, in brief,
as under:
(i) The revision applicant is a politician and presently the Chief
Minister of the State of Maharashtra. The general elections to the State
Legislative assembly were held in the State of Maharashtra in the year
2014. The revision applicant was one of the candidates who contested
elections. He contested the elections from Constituency-52, South-West,
Nagpur, the State of Maharashtra. He submitted his nomination paper
along with the requisite documents and affidavit in prescribed form,
Form No. 26 as prescribed under Rule 4A of the Conduct of Elections
Rules, 1961 ("Election Rules" for short).
(ii) The affidavit filed in Form No. 26 contained a declaration
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:48 :::
3
regarding the information that revision applicant was required to submit
mandatorily, in particular, the information in terms of Section 33A (1)
and (2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, the "Act
of 1951"). This provision of law required of the revision applicant to
disclose information relating to any pending criminal case in which
punishment prescribed was of imprisonment for two years or more, and a
charge was framed by the Court of competent jurisdiction or those
criminal cases in which he was convicted of an offence and sentenced to
imprisonment for one year or more.
(iii) According to the respondent, the revision applicant did not
disclose the information as required of him under sub-section (1) of
Section 33A of the Act of 1951. It was his contention that not only the
information relating to pending criminal cases involving offences
prescribing punishment of imprisonment of two years or more in which
charge was framed, but also such cases in which cognizance was taken by
the Court of competent jurisdiction as of the date of filing of the
nomination paper was required to be furnished by way of declaration
made on an affidavit in Form No. 26 by the revision applicant, which he
did not. According to him, there were two such cases being RCC No. 343
of 2003 (Madanlal Parate v. Shashikant Hastak & ors) involving offences
punishable under Sections 217, 218, 425, 466, 467, 468, 470, 474, 506,
109 read with Section 34 of IPC and RCC No. 231 of 1996 (Madanlal
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:48 :::
4
Parate v. Devendra Fadnavis) involving an offence punishable under
Section 500 IPC in both of which though charge was not framed, the
concerned Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur had taken
cognizance which were not disclosed by the revision applicant.
(iv) It was also the contention of respondent that non-disclosure
of these two pending criminal cases was in violation of Section 125A of
the Act of 1951 and constituted an offence envisaged by this provision of
law. The revision applicant pointed out this fact, firstly, to the Election
Observer and then to the Returning Officer on 4.10.2014, but to no avail.
The respondent also sent notices to the Returning Officer and Election
Commission of India inviting their attention to the offence committed by
the revision applicant under Section 125A of the Act of 1951. But,
according to the respondent, no action whatsoever was taken, rather, he
was informed by the Election Commission of India that a private citizen
having right to vote could also file a complaint before the competent
criminal court praying for taking of action against a candidate committing
an offence punishable under Section 125A of the Act of 1951.
(v) The communication of the Election Commission of India
dated 26.4.2014 relied upon by the respondent was a circular issued to
electoral officers of all States and Union Territories. Accordingly, the
respondent filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C. before
the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur for initiating action against the
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:48 :::
5
revision applicant for his committing an offence under Section 125A of
the Act of 1951.
(vi) The learned Magistrate recorded verification statement of the
respondent on 1.6.2015 and following the pursis filed by the respondent
at exhibits 16 and 19, applied his mind to the facts of the case as disclosed
by the complaint, verification statement of the respondent and documents
filed along with the complaint which included certified copies of the
nomination form and affidavit submitted by the revision applicant. Upon
consideration of all the relevant material available on record, the learned
Magistrate found that no prima facie case for proceeding further under
Section 125A of the Act of 1951 was made out against the revision
applicant and, therefore, by the order passed on 7.9.2015, the learned
Magistrate dismissed the complaint. The respondent carried the matter in
revision before the learned Sessions Judge who, by the order dated
30.5.2016 quashed and set aside the order of learned magistrate and
remanded the matter back to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class
for its fresh consideration in accordance with law. The learned Sessions
Judge was of the opinion that the learned Magistrate had passed a cryptic
and non-speaking order and did not consider the other relevant provisions
of law and, thus, committed perversity. Not being satisfied with it, the
revision applicant is before this Court in this application.
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:48 :::
6
3. I have heard Shri Sunil Manohar, learned Senior Advocate for
revision applicant and Shri Satish Ukey, the respondent/original
complainant who argued in person. I have also gone through the record
of the case including impugned order and order passed by the learned
Magistrate.
4. Shri Manohar appearing for the revision applicant submits
that an offence under Section 125A of the Act of 1951 is constituted only
when the information required under Section 33A (1) is concealed or
suppressed or submitted in a false manner. He further submits that the
allegation made by the respondent relates to concealment of an
information of two pending criminal cases in which cognizance was taken
by the trial Court. But, he submits that what is relevant under sub-section
(1) of Section 33A of the Act of 1951 is disclosure of only that pending
criminal case in which offence involved is punishable with imprisonment
for two years or more and the charge has been framed. He further
submits that a pending criminal case in which only cognizance is taken by
the Magistrate and no charge is framed is not the case covered by this
provision of law. He further submits that in RCC No. 343 of 2003 and
RCC No. 231 of 1996, admittedly, charge was not framed on the date of
filing of the nomination paper and, therefore, just because cognizance
was taken by the Magistrate, it cannot be said that there is a violation of
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:48 :::
7
Section 33A (1) of the Act of 1951 and consequently, one has to say that
no offence under Section 125A of the Act of 1951 is prima facie disclosed
against the applicant.
5. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that these facts of
the case, glaringly coming out from the record of the case, have been
properly appreciated by the trial Court, but have been completely ignored
by the Sessions Court. He further submits that the order dated 7.9.2015
passed by the learned Magistrate, and its bare perusal is enough, shows
that it is neither a cryptic order nor a non-speaking order and is a
reasoned order passed after due application of mind by the learned
magistrate. He submits that the provisions mentioned in the impugned
order passed by the learned Sessions Judge which, in the opinion of the
learned Sessions Judge ought to have been considered by the learned
Magistrate, are in fact not relevant for the purpose of present enquiry and,
therefore, ought not to have been suggested to be considered by the
learned magistrate by remanding the case back to his Court.
6. Shri Satish Ukey, respondent in person, submits that if Rule
4A of the Election Rules and Form No. 26 prescribed by it are carefully
perused, one would instantly know that a contesting candidate is required
to disclose information of all pending criminal cases in which offences
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:48 :::
8
involved are punishable with imprisonment for two years or more and in
which cognizance has been taken by the competent criminal court and if
such information is not disclosed in the affidavit, such non-disclosure or
concealment would be an offence punishable under Section 125A of the
Act of 1951.
7. Shri Satish Ukey further submits that the position in this
regard before the year 2012 was quite different when the column relating
to disclosure of information regarding a criminal case in which cognizance
was taken by the Criminal Court was not there in the affidavit, but now
it is not so. He submits that after the year 2012 which marked the
amendment of the prescribed Form No. 26, the scenario is that even such
information must be disclosed by a contesting candidate. He further
submits that the letter of Election Officer, which is in the nature of
circular dated 26.4.2014, would show that non-disclosure of such
information constitutes an offence under Section 125A of the Act of 1951.
8. Shri Satish Ukey, the respondent in person, further submits
that these facts, though relevant, were not at all considered by the
learned Magistrate when he dismissed the complaint erroneously by an
order dated 7.9.2015, which error has been sought to be corrected under
the order of the learned Sessions Judge impugned herein. He submits that
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:48 :::
9
the learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed that the order of the
learned Magistrate is cryptic and non speaking and also discloses
perversity for having not considered the relevant provisions of law and as
such, the order of the learned Sessions Judge deserves to be upheld by
dismissing this revision application.
9. Upon consideration of the order of the learned Magistrate
dated 07.09.2015, the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated
30.05.2016, impugned herein, the copy of the affidavit in question
submitted by the revision applicant along with his nomination form and
the relevant provisions of law, I am of the considered view that there is a
great substance in the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the
revision applicant and no merit in the submissions advanced by the
respondent in person.
10. In order to appreciate the arguments made across the bar, it
would be profitable for us to first consider the law which requires a
contesting candidate to disclose certain information in the manner
prescribed under the law. These provisions are contained in Sections 33
A and 125 A of the Act of 1951 and rule 4A of the Election Rules. For the
sake of convenience relevant portions of these provisions of law are
reproduced as under :-
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:48 :::
10
THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951.
Sec.33A Right to Information -(1) A candidate
shall, apart from any information which he is required to
furnish under this Act or the rules made thereunder, in his
nomination paper delivered under sub-section (1) of Section
33, also furnish the information as to whether
(i) he is accused of any offence punishable with
imprisonment for two years or more in a pending case in which
a charge has been framed by the court of competent
jurisdiction;
(ii) he has been convicted of an offence [other than any
offence referred to in sub-section (2) or covered in sub-section
(3), of section 8] and sentenced to imprisonment for one year
or more.
(2) The candidate or his proposer, as the case may be, shall,
at the time of delivering to the returning officer the nomination
paper under sub-section (1), of section 33, also deliver to him
an affidavit sworn by the candidate in a prescribed form
verifying the information specified in sub-section (1)
(3) -------------
Section 125A. Penalty for filing false affidavit, etc. - A
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:48 :::
11
candidate who himself or through his proposer, with interest to
be elected in an election, -
(i) fails to furnish information relating to sub-section (1) of
section 33A; or
(ii) gives false information which he knows or has reason to
believe to be false; or
(iii) conceals any information,
in his nomination paper delivered under sub-section (1) of
Section 33A 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 punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1951
Rule 4A. From of affidavit to be filed at the time of delivering
nomination paper. - The candidate or his proposer, as the case
may be, at the time of delivering to the returning officer the
nomination paper under sub-section (1) of section 33 of the
Act, also deliver to him an affidavit sworn by the candidate
before a Magistrate of the first class or a Notary in Form 26.
11. Though it is the case of the respondent in person that sub-
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:48 :::
12
section (1) of Section 33A of the Act, 1951 requires disclosure of those
pending criminal cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment
for two years or more and in which cognizance has been taken by the
court of competent jurisdiction, a bare reading of this section reproduced
above would show that it is not so. This section speaks of the information
to be furnished in his nomination paper, apart from any information
which a candidate is required to furnish under the Act of 1951 or Rules
made thereunder, which relates to two kinds of criminal cases. These
categories of cases are described in clause (i) and (ii) of this section.
Clause (i) relates to pending criminal cases in which offences involved are
punishable with imprisonment for two years or more and a charge has
been framed by the Criminal Court. Clause (ii) comprises those criminal
cases in which the candidate has been convicted of an offence and
sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more, other than any offence
referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), or sub-section (3), of
section 8 of the Act of 1951.
12. Here, I may make it clear that the case of the respondent
does not relate to non disclosure of information required under clause (ii)
of sub-section (1) of Section 33A. His case is about concealment of
information required to be disclosed under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of
Section 33A of the Act of 1951. This violation, the respondent seeks to
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:48 :::
13
prove by adding to the requirement of framing of charge the
requirement of taking of cognizance of an offence as of the date of filing
of the nomination paper. The respondent, for this submission, seeks aid of
Rule 4A of the Election Rules and amended Form 26 prescribed under
this Rule.
13. A plain reading of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section
33A, however, leads us to a different conclusion. The disclosure it
mandates is of the information in respect of only those criminal cases
wherein the offences involved are punishable with imprisonment for two
years or more and the charge has been framed. It speaks of no criminal
cases in which charge has not been framed, but cognizance has been
taken. The information so required to be disclosed by a candidate in his
nomination paper is also required to be supported by and verified on an
affidavit to be sworn in by the candidate in a prescribed form under sub-
section (2) of Section 33A of the Act of 1951. The prescribed form of
affidavit is Form 26 and it is prescribed by Rule 4A of the Election Rules.
Rule 4A does no more than prescribing the form of affidavit required to
be submitted by a candidate in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 33A
and thus only fulfills the mandate of Section 33A (2). As such, it does
not control sub-section (2) of Section 33A, rather is a tool to put into
effect that a candidate is obliged to do under Section 33A (1) of the Act of
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:48 :::
14
1951.
14. Rule 4A lays down that at the time of delivering to the
returning officer the nomination paper disclosing information as required
under sub-section (1) of Section 33A of the Act of 1951 the candidate
shall also deliver to him an affidavit sworn by the candidate before the
Magistrate of the first class or a Notary in form 26. Rule 4A lays down this
requirement because sub-section (2) of Section 33A which is reproduced
above says so. Sub-section (2) of Section 33A mandates the candidate
himself or through his proposer to also deliver, at the time of submitting
his nomination paper, an affidavit sworn by the candidate in a prescribed
form verifying the information specified in sub-section (1) of Section 33A.
So, it is clear that an affidavit which is required to be submitted along
with a nomination paper under this provision of law is for the purpose of
verifying the correctness of the information which is required to be
disclosed mandatorily by the contesting candidate in terms of sub-section
(1) of Section 33A of the Act of 1951. We have seen that it is only the
kind of information that has been specified under it's two clauses, clause
(i) and clause (ii), which is required to be furnished by the candidate and
nothing more. We have also seen that this information does not relate to
those pending criminal cases in which cognizance has been taken and it
relates to only those criminal cases, as laid down in clause (i), in which
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:48 :::
15
charge has been framed. Therefore, the argument of respondent in person
that in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 33A of the Act of 1951 read
with Rule 4A of the Election Rules and Form 26 affidavit, a contesting
candidate is also required to furnish information about pending criminal
cases in which cognizance has been taken is fallacious and is rejected.
15. Section 125A of the Act of 1951 imposes penalty for filing a
false affidavit. The penalty prescribed under this section is in the nature of
punishment with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six
months, or with fine, or with both. This penalty is invited only when a
candidate fails to furnish information as required under sub-section (1) of
Section 33A or knowingly gives false information or conceals any such
information in his nomination paper as is required to be given under sub-
section (1) of Section 33A or in his affidavit which is required to be
delivered under sub-section (2) of Section 33A of the Act of 1951. Here,
the allegation made against the revision applicant is that in the affidavit
delivered by him along with his nomination paper the information about
two criminal cases, Reg. Criminal Case No. 343 of 2003 and Reg.
Criminal Case No. 231 of 1996, pending against the revision applicant
was not furnished by him. They were the cases, it is alleged, in which
offences attracted imprisonment for two years or more and though the
charge was not framed, cognizance had been taken by the Criminal Court.
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:48 :::
16
But, as we have seen, this is not the requirement of Section 33A (1) of
the Act of 1951. To constitute an offence under Section 125A of the Act
of 1951, what is required is that false information must be given knowing
it to be false or there should be failure to furnish such information or
concealment of such information as is required to be given under sub-
section (1) and such folly must occur either in the nomination paper or
the affidavit delivered as per sub-section (2) of Section 33A of the Act of
1951 or both.
16. This can be seen and understood unhesitatingly upon reading
Section 125A of the Act of 1951 as a whole. Failure to furnish
information or knowingly giving false information or concealing
information are all the acts, as this provision of law lays bare before us,
which are related to not just any kind of information but to that
information as is required to be disclosed under sub-section (1) of Section
33A. This is because of the specific words used in Section 125A to the
effect - ".... in his nomination paper delivered under sub-section (1) of
Section 33A or in his affidavit which is required to be delivered under
sub-section (2) of Section 33A, as the case may be...". It must be noted
here that sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 33A of the Act of 1951
speak of disclosure of information specified in clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-
section (1) of Section 33A and verification of that disclosure in prescribed
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:48 :::
17
form of an affidavit respectively. In this backdrop, if one peruses the
affidavit submitted by the revision applicant, one would find that he
concealed no information which he was obliged to disclose under sub-
section (1) of Section 33A of the Act of 1951.
17. Rule 4A of the Election Rules, we have seen, by prescribing
the form of affidavit, only gives effect to the command of sub-section (2)
of Section 33A of the Act of 1951. As such, Rule 4A does not and being
a delegated piece of Legislation, cannot dominate the substantive
provision of law which is Section 33A of the Act of 1951. So, Rule 4A
cannot be understood as prescribing something more which is not the
requirement of sub-section (1) of Section 33A of the Act of 1951 and even
if it does, the additional requirement cannot be read as the requirement of
sub-section (1) of Section 33A of the Act of 1951, which is mandatory in
its nature and which when breached, would constitute an offence
punishable under Section 125A of the Act of 1951. Whenever any
additional information, not specified in sub-section (1) of Section 33A,
is required to be given in the affidavit in Form 26, and is not given, the
breach does not violate Section 33A (1) of the Act of 1951 and hence,
does not amount to an offence under Section 125A of the Act of 1951.
18. In the present case, the complaint is about concealment of
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:48 :::
18
information of two pending criminal cases being Regular Criminal Case
No. 343 of 2003 and Regular Criminal Case No. 231 of 1996 which
related to the offences prescribing punishment for more than two years
and which were the cases in which, admittedly, no charge was framed but
only cognizance was taken by the concerned criminal court. However,
these are not the cases contemplated under clause (i) or even clause (ii)
of sub-section (1) of Section 33A of the Act of 1951 and, therefore, there
was no requirement on the part of the revision applicant to have
disclosed pendency of these two criminal cases in the affidavit filed in
Form 26 by him along with his nomination paper. After all, such an
affidavit, as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 33A of the Act of 1951
is for the purpose of "verifying the information specified in sub-section
(1)" of Section 33A and when this provision of law mandates no
disclosure of those pending criminal cases in which charge has not been
framed and only cognizance has been taken, there remains no need to
verify by stating in an affidavit something not required by the substantive
provision of law to be stated. This is what the affidavit submitted by the
revision applicant along with his nomination form did and in my view, it
violated neither sub-section (1) of Section 33A nor Section 125A of the
Act of 1951. This would make me hold that prima-facie, no offence
punishable under Section 125A of the Act of 1951 has been made out in
this case against the revision applicant.
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:48 :::
19
19. The respondent in person invited my attention to prescribed
form of the affidavit in Form 26 which, according to him, was amended
in the year 2012, in order to buttress his case as to how revision
applicant brazenly violated sub-section (1) of Section 33A and Section
125A of the Act, 1951. I have gone through the relevant portions of Form
26 affidavit with his assistance. There is indeed a clause therein which
requires disclosure by the candidate of pending criminal cases in which
cognizance has been taken by the Court. The respondent in person also
took me through the copy of the affidavit delivered by the revision
applicant along with his nomination paper. In the copy of the affidavit
available on record of the case there is no mention about two criminal
cases being RCC No. 343 of 2003 and RCC No. 231 of 1996. But the
question is whether failure to furnish information about these two
pending cases would be an offence punishable under Section 125A of the
Act of 1951 or not. To my mind, the answer is a clear no for the reason
that it is not the requirement of sub-section (1) of Section 33 that
information about such criminal cases be disclosed nor is it the
requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 33A to make any verification of
such information by stating it in an affidavit. The verification of the
information upon an affidavit has to be done in respect of the disclosures
required under clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 33A and
no more insofar as an offence under Section 125A of the Act of 1951 is
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:48 :::
20
concerned. A criminal case in which cognizance has been taken is not the
one which is included in either of these two clauses of sub-Section (1) of
Section 33A. Therefore, failure to furnish information about pending
criminal case in which cognizance has been taken and no charge has been
framed, as is the case here, does not amount to commission of any offence
under Section 125A of the Act of 1951.
20. Apart from what is said above, Rule 4A of the Election Rules
is only a delegated piece of legislation and so can command disclosure of
only so much of information as is mandated by a substantive provision of
law and whenever it directs to disclose some additional information not
required under Section 33A of the Act of 1951, it does so for some other
purpose and certainly not for the purposes of Section 33 A and Section
125A of the Act of 1951. In other words, non-disclosure of such
additional information would be beyond the bounds of an offence
punishable under Section 125A of the Act of 1951.
21. Respondent in person submits that there is an opinion of the
Election Commission that failure to furnish such additional information is
also an offence under Section 125A. I must say that the opinion, if it is
there, is beyond the scope of Section 33A and Section 125A of the Act of
1951 and and as such is incorrect. In any case, it is not binding on this
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:48 :::
21
Court.
22. These aspects of law have been properly considered by the
learned Magistrate when he found that no prima facie case was made out
to proceed further for an offence under Section 125A of the Act of 1951
against the revision applicant. The order of the learned Magistrate,
disagreeing with the view expressed by the learned Sessions Judge, must
be said to be a well reasoned order. I do not understand as to how such
an order could have been described as a cryptic order and dealt with in
disdain by the learned Sessions Judge. For an order to be reasoned, it is
not necessary that it must run into several pages. Reasons can be stated
and best reasons have always been stated in an order which is short,
precise and succinct. To know the reasons, all that is required is a
discerning eye, which looks for the meaning of the words rather than the
number of words used. Sometimes, even the long orders do not contain
any reasons. But, as I understand, it is not the length of the order but the
strength of analysis and logic contained in an order which determines its
character. The learned Sessions Judge, however, has missed this basic
attribute of a reasoned order and thus committed a perversity in finding
something in the order of the learned Magistrate which was not its
frailty.
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:48 :::
22
23. The learned Sessions Judge has, without any rhyme or
reason, also said that the trial Court failed to consider the other relevant
provisions when she observed, ".....However, for reaching at the final
conclusion, the learned trial Court has skipped from consideration the
other relevant provisions like Section 33-A (2) and (3), Section 125-A,
Rule 4-A and Form 26 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and also the
object of insertion of Sections 33-A and 125-A in the said Act in 2002 and
the amendment of Form 26 in 2012 etc.". As a matter of fact, all relevant
provisions were indeed considered by the learned Magistrate and as
stated earlier, the provisions made in Rule 4A or amended Form 26 of the
Election Rules would not and do not go beyond substantive provisions of
law and, therefore, there was no further need to have considered those
provisions de hors the provisions of substantive law. Similarly, the object
of Section 33A and Section 125A of the Act of 1951, as an external aid of
interpretation, was not required to be considered, in view of the first and
foremost rule of interpretation of Statutes which is a literal rule of
construction, with the language of these two provisions of law being
plain and clear leaving no ambiguity of any nature in one's mind while
reading them. In this regard, I would like to draw strength from the law
settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of M/s Hiralal Ratan Lal
v. The Sales Tax Officer and anr reported in AIR 1973 SC 1034 and Lt.
Col. Prithi Pal Singh Bedi v. Union of India and ors reported in (1982)
::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:48 :::
23
3 SCC 140. This is another illegality committed by the learned Sessions
Judge.
24. The learned Sessions Judge, it is further seen, committed
one more illegality, a serious illegality, in directing the revision applicant,
an accused in a criminal complaint case filed against him by the
respondent, to appear before the Court of learned Magistrate while
directing the learned Magistrate to consider the matter afresh. This
direction made the revision applicant appear before the learned
Magistrate even before any process was issued against him by the learned
Magistrate and thus converted the whole proceeding before the
magistrate into a farce, leaving virtually no discretion with the Magistrate
under Section 202 or Section 203 of Cr. P. C.
25. Such an order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot sustain
the scrutiny of law. It deserves to be quashed and set aside by confirming
the order dated 7.9.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class
(Court No. 6), Nagpur.
ORDER
1) The revision application is allowed.
2) The impugned order dated 30.5.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, ::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:48 ::: 24 Nagpur in Criminal Revision No. 250 of 2015 is quashed and set aside and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Court No. 6), Nagpur on 7.9.2015 in Misc. Criminal Application No. 3550 of 2014 below Exhibit 1 is hereby confirmed.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
S . B. Shukre, J joshi ::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 01:49:48 :::