K K MATHEW Vs. DAMODARAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed to quash all proceedings in S.T. No. 88 of 1987 pursuant to Annexure Al complaint on the file of the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Court, Ranni. Petitioners are the Chief Editor, Managing Editor and the Printer and Publisher of Malayala Manorama, Kottayam ST. No. 88 of 1987 is a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent, who has contested the 1987 General Election to the Kerala Legislative Assembly held on 23-3-1987 from Ranni Constituency as an independent candidate. On 13-3-1987, the private complaint was filed by the 1st respondent alleging that the petitioners have committed an offence under S.171-F read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code on account of the publication of the editorial in the Malayala

(2.) As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners, a reading of Annexure A2 or the complaint does not disclose an offence punishable under S.171C of the IPC. To attract S.171C of the IPC it has to be established that the petitioners voluntarily interfered or attempted to interfere with the free exercise of any electoral right. What has been published in the editorial, Annexure A2, is only a general statement highlighting the difficulties encountered on account of a large number of candidates contesting the elections. The opinion of a newspaper or friendly advice made by it to the voters will not constitute offence under S.171C of the IPC. As a matter of fact, by Annexure A2, the request made to the voters is only to exercise their votes freely and not to be influenced by the gimmics shown by the rebel candidates and those candidates who do not put forward any definite programme or who do not have any clear manifesto to offer to the people. In order to establish undue influence the complainant has necessarily to prove that the influence was such as to deprive the voter of the free exercise of his will. It has been held in Amir Chand v. Sucheta Kripalani (AIR 1961 Punj. 383 at 385) as follows:

(3.) It is not at all possible to hold that the publication of the editorial constitutes an offence under S.171C punishable under S.171F of the IPC. The essence of undue influence is the use of unfair pressure upon a voter depriving him from the free exercise of his judgment.