Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.The respondent came to know about the offence committed by the petitioner only on 29.10.2013, on which day the District Collector, Thiruvarur sent a report with particulars. Based on the report and other documents, a complaint came to be filed before the trial Court on 26.02.2014.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned complaint is liable to be quashed on the sole ground that the limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C., is a bar. The offence under Section 177 of IPC and Section 125(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provide maximum punishment of two years and six months and fine respectively. This being the position, the complaint ought to be lodged before completion of three years from the date of occurrence or from the knowledge of the occurrence. According to the respondent, the occurrence came to his knowledge on 02.05.2013, but the present complaint was filed on 26.02.2014, which cannot be accepted for the reason that the affidavit published in public domain from 24.04.2009. Hence, the complaint has been filed beyond the period of limitation, which is hit by Sections 468 and 469 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel further submitted that Section 177 of IPC is pari-materia to Section 125(A) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Section 177 of IPC is a common law and Section 125(A) of the Representation of Peoples Act, is a special law.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

9.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

10.It is not in dispute that the petitioner filed nomination for the Parliamentary Election of the year 2009 and also filed declaration/affidavit and Form 32 on 24.04.2009 furnishing particulars and other documents. The petitioner contested 32 Madurai Parliamentary Constituency held during the month of May 2009. A complaint of one S.Jeganathan sent to the Election Commissions of India disclosed the suppression of fact that the petitioner failed to disclose immovable property bearing survey No.94/33 Manai 0.11.50 extent in patta No.353 situated at Kudavasal Taluk, Kattur Village. On 27.08.2013, the Election Commission of India intimated the Chief Electoral Officer to take further action in this regard. The District Collector, Thiruvarur directed the District Election Officer, Thiruvarur to verify the same and provide required particulars. Thus, the Election Commission as well as the Chief Electoral Officer had come to the knowledge of the suppression and false declaration made by the petitioner during the month of August 2013. Thereafter, the complaint came to be filed before the trial Court only on 26.06.2014. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner is being https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ prosecuted for offence under Sections 177 IPC and Section 125(A) of the Representation of People Act, wherein the punishment prescribed is for two years and six months and fine.