MAHABALA KUNDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.912/2017 pending trial before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi for the offence punishable under Ss. 171(F), 353, 145 read with Sec. 149 of IPC and Ss. 26(2) and 27(2) of Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993. They have also challenged the order dtd. 25/7/2018 taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that a report was lodged by the Police Inspector that the accused had formed an unlawful assembly when the Election code of conduct was in force on 20/2/2016 and they forced the voters to exercise their franchise in favour of a particular candidate. When they were confronted, they all challenged the Officer in a raised voice and attempted to pounce on him. Thereafter, the Police Inspector saw two vehicles in which the voters were ferried and on seeing the Police Inspector, all of them ran away from the spot.

(3.) Based on such a report, the proceedings were initiated and a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Ss. 171(C), 353 read with 149 of IPC and Ss. 130, 131 and 133 of Representation of People Act. The trial Court took cognizance of the said offences and issued process to the accused. The same was challenged before this Court in Crl.P.No.5236/2017. This Court in terms of the order dtd. 6/12/2017 held that the offences punishable under Sec. 171(C) of IPC merely define "Undue influence at Elections" which is not a penal provision and the trial Court without applying its mind took cognizance of the aforesaid offence. It also held that the election that was conducted to the Panchayath and therefore, the provision of Representation of the People Act could not be invoked. This Court therefore, quashed the order taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the accused and directed the Magistrate to take fresh cognizance after applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.