NAGENDRA MAHTO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule is directed against the judgment of a first class Magistrate at Purulia convicting the petitioner under Section 131 (1) (b) and Section 136 (1) (f), Representation of the People Act, 1951 and sentencing the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ - under each of these sections. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Purulia affirmed the convictions but reduced the sentences imposed upon the petitioner to a fine of one hundred rupees under each of these sections. The sentence of imprisonment has been set aside.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the prosecution, the election of candidates to the House of People and also to the State Legislative Assembly was taking place at Dighi polling booth on the material date. The petitioner was acting as a polling agent for Sri Bhajahari Mahto, one of the candidates for election to the House of People. It is alleged that the peon, Pelaram Mahto (P. W. 7), heard the sound of boxes coming from the room where the ballot boxes had been kept. He suspected foul play and made a report to the presiding officer, Mr. J.B. Ojha (P. W. 1). The latter officer entered the room where the ballot boxes were kept. It appears that the petitioner also followed the presiding officer inside the room and in spite of the order of the presiding officer asking the petitioner to go outside the petitioner refused to obey and there was an altercation between the parties. It is further alleged that the petitioner attempted to put some ballot papers into one of the ballot boxes. The petitioner was thereupon arrested and was forwarded to the Police station and the matter was taken up by the Police authorities.

(3.) THE defence of the petitioner was that he only protested against the entry of the presiding officer into the polling compartment and there had been exchange of hot words between him and the presiding officer. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced in the case, both the lower Courts have accepted the prosecution case as true and held that the petitioner was guilty of disorderly conduct within the meaning of Section 131 (1) (b) and that he was also guilty for interfering with the ballot boxes under Section 136 (1) (f), Representation of the People Act.