KASHINATH SHARMA Vs. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner No. 1 is a working journalist and is associated with various National and International print and electronic media in Madhya Pradesh and the petitioner No. 2 is a practising Advocate. THEy have filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation claiming some reliefs relating to the election of respondent No. 6 to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Jabalpur Cantonment Constituency.

(2.) THE petitioners have stated in the writ petition that as per the election programme, scrutiny of the nomination papers of the candidates for election from the Jabalpur Cantonment Constituency was conducted by the Returning Officer, Mr. O.P. Shrivastava, the Additional Collector, Jabalpur on 8-11 -2008 and the candidate of the Congress Party submitted a written objection to the candidature of the respondent No. 6 stating inter alia that the declaration made by the respondent No. 6 in Annexure 1 to the nomination paper that he had only 310 sq. meter of land was completely false and that actually the respondent No. 6 had a plot measuring 10,000 sq. ft. costing around 1.60 crore. In the written objection, the Congress candidate had also stated that the respondent No. 6 was the owner of the entire 10,000 sq. ft. of the area of land and yet respondent No. 6 had stated in the declaration that he had only a share as a co-owner of the property. In the written objection, the Congress candidate had also stated that respondent No. 6 had stated in the declaration that the house was a very small house and that the cost of construction was only Rs. 9,59,136/-, but the actual cost of construction would be around Rs. 64,00,000/-. THE petitioners have contended that the respondent No. 6 was liable for prosecution and his nomination paper was liable to be rejected, but the Returning Officer (respondent No. 4) by his order dated 8-11-2008 has wrongly accepted the nomination paper of the respondent No. 6.

(3.) MR. S.C. Datt, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 also submitted that where false declaration of assets and liabilities are filed by a candidate, the remedy of the voter is to file an Election Petition under Section 100 of the Act of 1951, but the petitioners in this case have not filed an Election Petition against the respondent No. 6 for making a false declaration. He submitted that Section 125-A of the Act of 1951 makes a candidate punishable for giving false information along with the nomination paper, but Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that no Court shall take cognizance of the offences mentioned therein except on the complaint in writing of either the public servant or of the concerned Court. He submitted that cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 125-A of the Act of 1951 thus can be taken after compliance with the provisions of Section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.