B.G.UDAY Vs. H.G.PRASHANTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this court vested u/s.397 r/w Sec.401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for calling in question the Sessions Judge's order dtd. 11/9/2023 dismissing Criminal Appeal No.1303/2022 and thereby confirming the order of conviction & sentence 13/10/2022 made by the learned XLII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.30758/2021 (Spl.C.C.No.764/2020). To put in succinctly, petitioner after trial was convicted for the electoral offence punishable u/s 125A of R.P. Act, 1951 and was sentenced to undergo a Simple Imprisonment for two months coupled with levy of Rs.10,000.00 by way of fine; petitioner's appeal against the same came to be negatived.

(2.) SUBMISSION OF PETITIONER'S COUNSEL: Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Uday Holla appearing for the petitioner briefly submitted that the penal provision enacted in Sec. 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.

(3.) SUBMISSION OF COMPLAINANT'S COUNSEL: After service of notice, the respondent having entered appearance through his counsel opposes the petition with vehemence making submission in justification of both the orders and the reasons on which they have been constructed. The gist of his submission is: the revisional jurisdictional is too restrictive and therefore a deeper examination of the impugned orders cannot be readily undertaken, two courts having concurrently held against the petitioner; whether the charges are framed or not, the candidate in the electoral fray has to disclose pendency of criminal cases and the petitioner having failed to do so, has been rightly convicted & sentenced. He read out two decisions extracted in the order of the Appellate Court, in support of his submission.