SAHID PERVEZ Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Counsel for the parties. In this case, the sole petitioner, has assailed the order taking cognizance, dated 22.12.2005

(2.) passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jhanjharpur in Complaint Case No. 132 of 2005 as also the revisionai order, dated 19.9.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Criminal Revision No. 380 of 2006 affirming the aforesaid order taking cognizance.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner, as can be made out from the recitals in the complaint petition as also in this quashing application, limited for the purposes of deciding the correctness of the two orders lie in a very narrow compass. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a Block Development Officer, Andhratharhi at the relevant point of time in the year 2004 and was entrusted the job of Assistant Electoral Officer, the Returning Officer for 2005 Assembly Election. It is also not in dispute that in course of such holding of the election the electoral roll of Jhanjharpur Assembly Constituency has to be revised in terms of the provisions made in the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). It appears that on 22.11.2004 the Enumerator with the task of performing/submitting report of the existing voters list, had reported that as many as 24 persons of village Marukiya were found to be absent from their respective houses and as such their names was not fit to be retained in the voters list. The Enumerator, however, had sought the direction of the Assistant Returning Officer by his letter, dated 22.11.2004 as to what he should do in respect of such persons because at least 24 of them were putting pressure that their names should not be removed from the voters list at any cost. It has been stated by the petitioner that on the said report of the Enumerator, he had made certain recommendations and the matter was ultimately placed before the Sub -Divisional Officer, Jhanjharpur who on 25.11.2004 had passed an order for transferring the names of the persons who were not found to be present at their respective places/residences by the Enumerator in terms of the powers vested in him under Clause 5.1 of Chapter III of "HAND BOOK FOR ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICERS". The said order, dated 25.11.2004 led to the issuance of a draft electoral roll in which the name of the Opposite Party No. 2, his family members and others were shown to have been transferred from one booth to another in the same constituency. It appears that on the said action taken by the electoral authorities including the petitioner, the Opposite Party No. 2 became aggrieved and had threatened the petitioner as is claimed by him in a report submitted to the police on 18.12.2004. It appears that on the said report, a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was drawn against the Opposite Party No. 2 and while the preventive action was taken by the law & order authorities, the final publication of the Draft Electoral Roll was also made on 3.1.2005. Thereafter, the Assembly elections of the Jhanjharpur Constituency alongwith other constituencies were held on 15.2.2005 and it is the case of the Opposite Party No. 2 that only thereafter on 2.3.2005 he had made a protest before the petitioner that it was on account of wrong reporting of facts that his name was removed from one particular place of voter list and was transferred to another voter list on a different booth as a resuit of which he alongwith his family members could not cast their votes on 15.2.2005. The Opposite Party No. 2 has claimed that on being refused by the petitioner to get his name restored in the voter list as desired by him, he had filed the present complaint on 3.3.2005.