(1.) The petitioner/A-4 filed the petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C to quash the Crime No.11/ACB-CR/2015 of Anti Corruption Bureau Police Station, City Range-I, Hyderabad registered on 31.05.2015 for the offences punishable under Sec. 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (for short, PC Act ) and Sections 120-B read with 34 I.P.C. basing on the letter/report dated 28.05.2015 of the 2nd respondent.
(2.) Impugning the registration of above crime, the petitioner/A- 4 in the petition sought for quashing of the proceedings with the contentions in the grounds for quashing that it is not a case of the accused abetting the other to commit the offence, that the defacto-complainant inviting the accused to seek his vote at the behest of the ruling party with a guilty intent to implicate the petitioner and others in a criminal case with a concocted and false story and hence apart from the petitioner, the defacto-complainant who abetted the commission of the alleged offence shall be tried and punished as prime accused. It is further contended that the police after receiving the written report from the 2nd respondent on 28.05.2015, thereafter registering the crime on 31.05.2015 and proceeding further with the investigation is contrary to law that there are no ingredients either in the written report or as per the subsequent charge sheet to constitute an offence under Sec. 12 of the P.C. Act, that admittedly the crime was not registered on that day and on the other hand the investigating officer initiated the enquiry and arranged for video and audio recording for collecting the evidence without registering the F.I.R and reporting to the Court. It is further contended that the respondent police on 31.05.2015 after trap was laid and after recording the conversation between accused and the 2nd respondent and after seizing the cash and other articles, the crime was registered. It is contended that the person abetting any offence under Sections 7 or 11 of P.C. Act shall be liable to be punished under Sec. 12 of the P.C. Act and thus it is clear that only when the material collected show that the accused abetted the offence either under Sec. 7 or Sec. 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, then only the prosecution could proceed under Sec. 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, that on perusal of Sec. 7 of the Act would clearly indicate that a person being a public servant accepts or agrees to accept as a motive or reward for doing or not doing any official act in the exercise of his official functions, therefore, there shall be an allegation that a public servant must have been induced by the accused to accept or to agree to accept gratification for doing an act or forbearing to do an act in the exercise of his official functions, that therefore casting of vote or not to vote is not an official act or official duty to attract the ingredients of Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is further contended that Sec. 11 of P.C. Act is also not attracted as the ingredients itself says that if a public servant accepts or agrees to accept any valuable thing without consideration or for an inadequate consideration in any proceeding or business transacted by such public servant or for any action with his official function and this section also referred to the public duty and official function, therefore, when the public duty or public functions are not involved with reference to exercise of the voting right, Sec. 11 of the Act also would not be attracted.
(3.) The petitioner further contended that the offence of bribery and inducement to an elector during the elections pursuant to the notification issued by the Election Commission under Representation of People Act, would come under Sections 123 to 138 of the Representation of People Act, 1951; apart from that the offences relating to elections i.e., bribery, undue influence etc., would come under Sections 171-A to 171-I of the Indian Penal Code and all these offences are non-cognisable and bailable offences, that right to vote is a statutory right, as such there is no discharge of public functions in exercising franchise as the elector, that there must be a discharge of public function or activity, to come under the purview of public servant as defined under Sec. 2(c) of the P.C. Act, that electoral malpractices does not come within the ambit of the P.C. Act and Sections 171-A to 171-H of I.P.C were retained even after the commencement of the P.C. Act to curb the electoral malpractices and to punish the same.
ABOUT US "REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD." is a Company incorporated in 1991 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Since its inception to 1995, the Company was busy in carrying out the activities related to various Banks' Job Work..
Read More
Sales: sales@the-laws.com
Support: info@the-laws.com
8000853936
9376168072
27, 4TH FLOOR, Agrawal Center, Ashram Road, Income Tax, Ahmadabad 380014.
LOGIN