MAST RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been served. He is not present. The list has been revised. We have gone through the judgment of the High court. We do not find any error in it. The High court in our opinion rightly held that Section 171-1 of the Indian Penal Code applied to non-maintenance of account by a member of Parliament who contested the election and not to irregular maintenance of account. The petition is thus devoid of any substance. Further there is delay of 31 days, but the petitioner has not filed any application for condonation of delay.

(2.) A letter has been sent by the petitioner in which he has challenged the sentence awarded to him in suo motu contempt proceedings drawn against him by the High court for a letter written by him to the Additional District and Sessions Judge.

(3.) Since the petition is directed against the order passed by the High court initiated by the petitioner for taking action under Section 171 (1 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent the letter challenging the sentence under contempt proceedings is misconceived.