The High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for offences under sections 448 and 188 IPC. The court held that the prima facie evidence supported the occurrence of the incident during the polling hours.
Disposal of the criminal petition and closure of pending miscellaneous petitions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9795 of 2014
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.491 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. A charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 188 IPC and Section 102 Cr.P.C.
The allegations in the charge sheet would show that on 26.04.2014 at about 3.15 p.m. the accused entered into room No.114, B-Block of Vishnu Women’s College, Bhimavaram with a cash of Rs.60,620/- disobeying the orders of Election Commission while postal ballet polling was going on under the supervision of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhimavaram and the Returning Officer. On his entrance, the in-charge officer, by name, Gadiraju Venkata Narasimharaju, A.E.E.,
R & B, Bhimavaram along with the flying squad caught hold of the accused and seized an amount of Rs.60,620/- from his possession. In respect of the above incident, a case in Crime No.58 of 2014 came to be registered, on the basis of a report given by the said in-charge officer. The police investigated into the matter and laid a charge sheet which was taken on file as C.C.No.491 of 2014 on the file of the II
Additinonal Judicial Magistrate of First class, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District.
The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would mainly submit that no offences as alleged under Sections 448, 188 IPC and Section 102 Cr.P.C. are made out against the accused. According to him, on 26.04.2014 at 5.30 p.m. the accused went to Vishnu Engineering College, Bhimavaram in search of his counsel, by which time, the period of ordinance had already expired. He would further submit that there is no complaint from any agent of any party who were present there and, as such, the ingredients constituting any of the offences are not made out. The learned counsel would also submit that entering into public places would not amount to trespass as defined under Section 448 IPC.
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition.
A perusal of the material placed on record would show that pursuant to an incident, which took place on 26.04.2014 at 3.15 p.m., the Assistant Executive Engineer, R & B, Bhimavaram lodged a report in the police station for the above mentioned offences. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the accused is that the incident happened after 5.00 p.m., and since the period of ordinance has expired, the question of the accused committing an offence punishable under section 188 IPC would not arise. The allegations in the first information report clearly reveal that the incident took place on 26.04.2014 at 3.15 p.m. The said F.I.R. was based on the
statements given by the Officers present in the polling booth at that time. All of them in one voice stated that the incident took place at 3.15 p.m. During investigation, the police examined nine witnesses and, pursuant to their statements, the police filed a charge sheet showing the time of incident as 3.15 p.m. The discrepancy in the mediators’ report, wherein the time of incident was mentioned as 5.00 p.m., was taken as a ground to contest that the incident did not happen at 3.15 p.m. But, the contents in the first information report, which was given immediately after the incident, were based on the statements made by the inmates of the polling booth which categorically disclose that the incident took place at 3.15 p.m. In any event, the issue being a disputed fact, the same cannot be gone into in an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused is that none of the agents, who were present in the polling booth, complained about the accused trespassing into the polling booth with cash. The said aspect, in my view, cannot be gone into at this stage. The effect of nonexamination of the agents, if any present in the polling booth, is a matter which has to be appreciated during trial. At this stage, it cannot be said that their non-examination is fatal to the case. Since the offence took place at 3.15 p.m, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that entering into the premises after 5.00 p.m. would not amount to an offence under Section 448 IPC also cannot be accepted. As stated earlier, the ordinance was in force by the date of incident and, as such, entering into the premises, when postal ballet polling was going
on, would prima facie amount to trespass.
For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that there are no merits in the criminal petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in the criminal petition shall stand closed.
__________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 5th September, 2014 cbs
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9795 of 2014
5th September, 2014
cbs
3 issues framed by the court
Whether proceedings under sections 448, 188 IPC and section 102 Cr.P.C. regarding entry into a polling booth with cash during postal ballot are liable to be quashed under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the alleged entry into the polling booth after the expiry of the ordinance period negates the offence of trespass under section 448 IPC.
Whether the absence of a complaint from agents present in the polling booth prevents the offence of trespass from being made out at this stage.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
the petitioner/accused
the state
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
