SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Devendra Gangadharrao Fadnavis vs Satish S/O Mahadeorao Ukey on 3 May, 2018

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 04/05/2018 01:49:48 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation