9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Qualification of the appellant to stand for election. 2. Validity of the declaration made by the appellant. 3. Jurisdiction of the returning officer. 4. Appealability of the order passed by the returning officer. 5. Whether the returning officer acts as a court. 6. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate in filing a complaint. 7. Whether the order of the Magistrate was without jurisdiction. 8. Misapprehension in the statement of the appellant's caste. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Qualification of the appellant to stand for election: The appellant was a candidate for election to the House of the People from the Karnal Reserved Constituency. According to the proviso to section 33(3) of the Representation of the People Act (XLIII of 1951), a candidate must provide a verified declaration that they are a member of the Scheduled Castes for which the seat is reserved. The appellant declared himself a member of the Balmiki Caste, a recognized Scheduled Caste under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. 2. Validity of the declaration made by the appellant: The appellant's declaration was challenged by another candidate, who claimed that the appellant was not a Balmiki by caste but was born a Muslim and converted to Hinduism. The District Magistrate held an inquiry and found prima facie evidence supporting the claim that the appellant was born a Muslim and later converted to Hinduism. Consequently, a complaint was filed against the appellant under sections 181, 182, and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Jurisdiction of the returning officer: The Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the returning officer was not a court, and thus the proceedings did not fall under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court, however, held that the returning officer was a court and that his order was appealable, but dismissed the revision on the merits. 4. Appealability of the order passed by the returning officer: The Supreme Court examined whether the order of the District Magistrate, acting as the returning officer, was open to appeal. Sections 195, 476, and 476-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure were scrutinized. The Court concluded that the order was not appealable as the returning officer was not acting as a court under section 195(1)(b). 5. Whether the returning officer acts as a court: The Court analyzed the functions and powers of the returning officer under section 36 of the Representation of the People Act. It was determined that while the returning officer performs judicial functions, he does not act as a court. The proceedings before the returning officer are quasi-judicial and do not possess all the attributes of a court. 6. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate in filing a complaint: The Court noted that the application for initiating prosecution under section 193 was made under section 476 on the assumption that the returning officer was a court. However, the application was also presented under section 195, which was necessary for offences under sections 181 and 182. The Court held that there was no legal impediment to the returning officer filing a complaint under sections 181 and 182 and also charging the accused with an offence under section 193. 7. Whether the order of the Magistrate was without jurisdiction: The Court found that the order dated 17-9-1952 was not without jurisdiction. The appellant's objection that the returning officer was not a court was overruled by the Magistrate, and the complaint was validly filed under section 195(1)(a). 8. Misapprehension in the statement of the appellant's caste: The appellant contended that the Magistrate misapprehended his declaration, stating that he was born a Balmiki, whereas he only declared that he was a Balmiki by caste. The Court found no substance in this contention, noting that the appellant himself pleaded in his counter-affidavit that he was born in a Balmiki Hindu family. The charge in the complaint was that the appellant's declaration of being a Balmiki by caste was false. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the order of the Magistrate dated 17-9-1952 was final and that there were no exceptional grounds for interference in a special appeal. The Court upheld the discretion of the lower courts in deciding whether to take action under section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
|
