Case title: Sri. B G Uday v. Sri. H G Prashanth
Case no.: CRL.RP.NO.1157 OF 2023 (397-ER)
Dated on: 24th April 2024
Quorum: Justice Krishna S Dixit
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner, Sri B G Uday, sought the revision of the judgment dated 11th September 2023 passed by the LXXXI Additional City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge. The judgment confirmed the petitioner’s conviction and sentence under section 125A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (R.P. Act), for failure to disclose pending criminal cases in his nomination papers during elections. The petitioner was sentenced to two months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000.
The petitioner, Sri B G Uday, was convicted for an electoral offence under section 125A of the R.P. Act, 1951, for failing to disclose pending criminal cases in his nomination papers during elections. He was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment and fined Rs. 10,000. The petitioner appealed the conviction, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER
Sr. Advocate Mr. Uday Holla appearing for the petitioner briefly submitted that the penal provision enacted in section 125A of the 1951 Act needs to be construed strictly and if that is done, no offence can be alleged against his client; the legal requirement to disclose pendency of criminal case arises only when such a case has attained a particular stage and not otherwise; this aspect having been wrongly approached by the courts below, the impugned orders are liable to be voided, notwithstanding that the findings therein are concurrent. In support of his submission, he pressed into service certain Rulings of the Apex Court.
In Prabhat Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P., (2024) 3 SCC 665: This case is cited to support the argument for quashing criminal proceedings when the allegations in the FIR or complaint, even if taken at face value, do not constitute any offense against the accused.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
Sri. Manjunath H., representing the respondent, opposed the petition, asserting that the courts below correctly upheld Uday’s conviction. He argued that the duty to disclose pending criminal cases applies regardless of the stage of the case and that Uday’s failure to disclose amounted to a violation of electoral laws.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 125A of Representation of the People Act, 1951: Penalty for filing false affidavit, etc-
A candidate who himself or through his proposer, with intent to be elected in an election,-
- fails to furnish information relating to subsection (1) of section 33A; 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.”
Sec. 33A of Representation of the People Act, 1951: 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 subsection (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 (1) or sub-section (2), or covered in sub-section (3), of section 8 and sentenced to imprisonment for one year or more.
ISSUE –
- Whether the duty to disclose pending criminal cases in nomination papers arises before the framing of charges?
- Whether the petitioner’s failure to disclose pending cases constitutes an electoral offence under section 125A of the R.P. Act?
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Hon’ble High Court, in its analysis, delved into the provisions of Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and Rule 4A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, to interpret the duty of candidates to disclose pending criminal cases during elections. The court emphasized the importance of providing voters with transparent information about candidates’ criminal antecedents to enable informed decision-making.
The court highlighted that Section 125A of the Act mandates disclosure of pending cases only when charges have been framed or cognizance of the offenses has been taken. It noted that the requirement to disclose pending criminal cases should be construed in conjunction with Rule 4A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, which specifies the format of the affidavit to be filed by candidates.
The judgment underscored that the duty to disclose arises only when charges have been framed or cognizance has been taken, as per the provisions of Section 33A of the Act. The court rejected the argument that candidates must disclose pending cases at any stage, emphasizing that such an interpretation would go beyond the legislative intent.
Furthermore, the court observed that the proceedings against the petitioner amounted to an abuse of process, as no offense was disclosed against him. Quoting precedent, the court reiterated that criminal proceedings should not be initiated unless the allegations prima facie constitute an offense.
In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, setting aside the lower courts’ orders and acquitting the petitioner. It directed the refund of any fines paid by the petitioner. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of strict adherence to electoral laws while balancing the rights of candidates and voters.
The case of Sri. B G Uday vs. Sri. H G Prashanth serves as a significant precedent regarding the interpretation of electoral laws, particularly the duty of candidates to disclose pending criminal cases. The judgment clarifies that such disclosure is mandatory only when charges have been framed or cognizance has been taken, aligning with the legislative intent to ensure transparency in the electoral process. This decision underscores the judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law and safeguarding democratic principles in electoral matters.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A
