Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Malho

26. Shri Vivek Tankha, Senior Advocate submitted that since, the respondent no.1/Mukesh Malhotra had substantially complied with the provisions of Section 33A of Representation of the People Act and non-disclosure disclosure that "whether whether charges have been frame framed or not" or "non-disclosure disclosure of date of NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC 2026:MPHC-GWL:8025 framing of charges" or "incorrect incorrect summary of allegations"

36. As already pointed out, Shri Vivek Tankha, Senior Advocate, Counsel for respondent no.1/Mukesh Malhotra, did not plead any prejudice on account of absence of specific plea in election petition regarding incorrect disclosure of allegations, therefore, it is held that the respondent no.1/Mukesh Malhotra also gave false declaration about the nature of allegations levelled against him in two pending cases mentioned in Group I cases. Therefore, ore, it is held that respondent no.1/Mukesh Malhotra, mislead the electorate by giving false information in his affidavit filed in form 26.

41. Shri Vivek Tankha, Senior Advocate also relied upon the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Satish Ukey (Supra) referred to para 23 which reads as under :

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC 2026:MPHC-GWL:8025

23. The position is made further clear by the letters written by the Election Commission of India to the Chief Electoral Officer of all the States and the Union Territories. A reading of the said letters letters would go to show that a contesting candidate is mandated to furnish information concerning the cases in which a competent court has taken cognizance along with the cases in which charges have been framed. The said letters also make it clear that the affidavit affidavit mentioned in Section 33-A(2) A(2) of the 1951 Act is prescribed in Form 26 and that any false declaration or concealment of information in the said affidavit will attract the provisions of Section 125 125-AA of the 1951 Act.

(emphasis supplied)

42. Shri Vivek Tankha, Senior Advocate also relied upon judgment passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Umang Singhar Vs. Chhattar Singh and others decided on 2-1-2006 in E.P. No. 13 of 2004 in which it was held that "From a bare perusal of provisions contained in this Section, it is clear that a prospective candidate is not required to disclose particulars of the criminal case in which he has been acquitted or discharged." Shri Vivek Tankha, Senior Advocate also relied upon another judgment passed by co co-ordinate ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Rasal Singh Vs. The Election Commission of India decided on 4-9-2014 in E.P. No. 10/2014 in which it was held that "it is clear that a candidate is not required to disclose (a) the cases in which he is acquitted or discharged of criminal offences;".