DHIRENDRA MOHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MRS. Poonam Srivastava, J. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. S. Singh Advocate for the respondent No. 2 and learned A. G. A. for the State.

(2.) THE instant writ petition is filed with a prayer for quashing the proceedings in complaint case No. 541 of 2004, pending in the Court of 1st Judicial Magistrate, Meerut and also challenging the orders dated 23-1-2002 passed in revision and the order dated 12- 4-2002 summoning the petitioner under Section 127-A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.

(3.) SRI Anoop Trivedi has raised a number of contentions challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate summoning the petitioner. The first objection is that Dainik Jagran is a leading newspaper and the alleged offensive publication, in respect of which the instant complaint has been filed, cannot constitute an offence within the meaning of Section 127-A of the Act. The publication was in Hindi Daily and bare perusal of the same makes it clear that it was only an advertisement published in the newspaper and cannot constitute an 'election pamphlet or poster'. Besides the restriction imposed by Section 127-A of the Act is that any such publication which does not bear the name, address of the printer or the publisher, will be covered within the meaning of offence. The newspaper is a leading newspaper and the publisher of the Hindi Daily is a known figure, besides the newspaper itself is registered under the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. So far Section 127-A (b) of the Act relates to the prior permission of the Chief Electoral Officer or the District Magistrate concerned, it is submitted that no permission is required since the publication was only an advertisement in Hindi Daily which is published every day.