STATE Vs. SIDDHANNATH GANGARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the Government under Section 417, Criminal P. C. , against the order and judgment of the Additional District Magistrate, Ujjain in Criminal Case No. 2 of 1953 acquitting; the respondent Siddhanath of an offence under Section 171-F, Penal Code.

(2.) THE learned Government Advocate while arguing the appeal made it quite clear that the appeal has been filed for getting an authoritative pronouncement from this Court on the question whether the prosecution is bound to prove the guilty intent, mens rea, in cases of personation at an election. It was added that the Government are not pressing for any deterrent sentence on the respondent in case he is found guilty of the offence of personation under Section 171p, Penal Code.

(3.) THE case related to the 1952 election of the Legislative Assembly and the Parliament Lob Sabha, The name of Gangaram s/o Haresingh aged 50 was recorded in the voters' list as a voter for these two elections. The said Gangaram fell seriously ill, but he was keen to cast his vote. He, therefore asked his son Siddhanath respondent, to go to the polling station and cast his vote in favour of the Congress party. There is no question of corrupt motive involved in this case; for, if the contest in this election had been keen and any of the candidates at the election had desired to get Gangaram's vote, they could have easily brought him on a charpai to the polling booth at Bad Kummed where the polling took place. It appears that nobody knew about Gangaram's illness. As an illiterate farmer, he believed that his vote could be cast by his son; and his son, the present respondent, also believed that he could cast his father's vote at the polling booth. We need not enter into details about the evidence as the son the present respondent, is hardly 25, and Gangaram's age was not less than 50. If anybody would have cared to closely see the face of the respondent, he could have easily detected that the respondent was not Gangaram. We, therefore, leave the details of evidence as it is only a question of law that we have to decide.