The Gujarat High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against sitting Gujarat Home Minister Pradipsinh Jadeja. (Pradipsinh Jadeja v. State of Gujarat)..The case related to the supposed distribution of election material with the Minister's photograph and his party symbol, the Bharatiya Janata Party's Lotus symbol, without any indication about the printer and the publication as was required by Section 127A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951..Quashing the proceedings against the Minister, Justice Ilhesh J Vora pronounced orders in the 13-year-old case on Monday.."To make out a case for offence under Section 127(A)(1), there must be some evidence, even at the stage of issuance of summon, that applicant has printed, published and distributed the material – ''election pamphlet''. In the present case, there is no prima-facie case made out for aforesaid offences", the Court said..The case, dating back to the 2007 Gujarat State elections, was registered after Ahmedabad City Congress Committee President Pankaj Shah informed the District Election Officer that pamphlets were being distributed with the Bharatiya Janata Party's election symbol and Jadeja's photograph, but without details about who printed and published them..He stated that he received news of this supposed violation from Vinaysinh Tomar, then a member of the National Students Union of India. .Shah averred that the act constituted an election Code of Conduct infraction and a contravention of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. On the basis of Shah's complaint, the Election Officer directed the Returning Officer to register a private complaint against Jadeja. .After a preliminary verification and investigation by the police, the Metropolitan Magistrate who heard the case proceeded to issue notice and summons.This was done despite the investigation report stating that the Police was unable to find out the name of the printer and publisher of the pamphlet and also it is not established that who has distributed the pamphlet..Senior Advocate ND Nanavati, who argued Jadeja's case, asserted that the pamphlets in question were not election pamphlets at all, in terms of how the Representation of the People Act defined the term. He also questioned the manner in which the Magistrate took cognizance even after the Investigation did not find the pamphlets were circulated by Jadeja..The Counsel for the Returning Officer Advocate Sahil M Shah submitted that the Returning Officer only acted upon orders when the complaint was filed, and when there was prima facie material to proceed. .Finding that the Magistrate who issued summons, did not apply his mind and initiated judicial process mechanically, the Court agreed that the material circulated did not constitute an election pamphlet. ."... the impugned order does not demonstrate that the learned Magistrate has perused the material on record and applied his mind before taking cognizance and satisfaction of the learned Magistrate forming his opinion with regard to proceed against the applicant for the alleged offences are without any basis and contrary to the settled law."Gujarat High Court.Justice Vora referred to the definition of election pamphlets in Section 127A(3) (b) which required a pamphlet:To be distributed to promote or prejudice the election of a candidate or group of candidates or any placard or poster having reference to an election,Pertinently, it does not include:hand-bills, placards, or posters announcing the details of the election meeting; routines instructions to election agents or workers..The pamphlet with its verses in praise of a deity, with Jadeja's photograph and the BJP's Lotus symbol, and the slogan 'Aapnu Gujarat' (our Gujarat) Aagvu Asarva (distinct and different Asarva)', did not promote the candidate or prejudice his opponent, the Court said. As such, it quashed the proceedings against him.."Bare perusal of the pamphlet (page-37&38) for which, the complaint is filed against the applicant, it cannot be said that it is ''election pamphlet'' within the meaning of Section 127A(3)(b). Thus, the pamphlet page-37 & 38 taken at their face value, it cannot be said that even a prima-facie case is made out against the applicant for the alleged offences. The pamphlet do not contain the promotion of the election or any election agenda nor any reference to the election notified. Once it is found that the offending material – pamphlet (page-37&38) cannot be said to be an ''election pamphlet'', as defined under Section 123A(3)(b) of the Act, it could not be said that prima-facie case is made out against the applicant for the offences under Sections 127A(1), 127A(2)(a) punishable under Section 127A(4) of the Act", the Court said..Exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, the Court closed the case..Read the Judgment:
The Gujarat High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against sitting Gujarat Home Minister Pradipsinh Jadeja. (Pradipsinh Jadeja v. State of Gujarat)..The case related to the supposed distribution of election material with the Minister's photograph and his party symbol, the Bharatiya Janata Party's Lotus symbol, without any indication about the printer and the publication as was required by Section 127A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951..Quashing the proceedings against the Minister, Justice Ilhesh J Vora pronounced orders in the 13-year-old case on Monday.."To make out a case for offence under Section 127(A)(1), there must be some evidence, even at the stage of issuance of summon, that applicant has printed, published and distributed the material – ''election pamphlet''. In the present case, there is no prima-facie case made out for aforesaid offences", the Court said..The case, dating back to the 2007 Gujarat State elections, was registered after Ahmedabad City Congress Committee President Pankaj Shah informed the District Election Officer that pamphlets were being distributed with the Bharatiya Janata Party's election symbol and Jadeja's photograph, but without details about who printed and published them..He stated that he received news of this supposed violation from Vinaysinh Tomar, then a member of the National Students Union of India. .Shah averred that the act constituted an election Code of Conduct infraction and a contravention of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. On the basis of Shah's complaint, the Election Officer directed the Returning Officer to register a private complaint against Jadeja. .After a preliminary verification and investigation by the police, the Metropolitan Magistrate who heard the case proceeded to issue notice and summons.This was done despite the investigation report stating that the Police was unable to find out the name of the printer and publisher of the pamphlet and also it is not established that who has distributed the pamphlet..Senior Advocate ND Nanavati, who argued Jadeja's case, asserted that the pamphlets in question were not election pamphlets at all, in terms of how the Representation of the People Act defined the term. He also questioned the manner in which the Magistrate took cognizance even after the Investigation did not find the pamphlets were circulated by Jadeja..The Counsel for the Returning Officer Advocate Sahil M Shah submitted that the Returning Officer only acted upon orders when the complaint was filed, and when there was prima facie material to proceed. .Finding that the Magistrate who issued summons, did not apply his mind and initiated judicial process mechanically, the Court agreed that the material circulated did not constitute an election pamphlet. ."... the impugned order does not demonstrate that the learned Magistrate has perused the material on record and applied his mind before taking cognizance and satisfaction of the learned Magistrate forming his opinion with regard to proceed against the applicant for the alleged offences are without any basis and contrary to the settled law."Gujarat High Court.Justice Vora referred to the definition of election pamphlets in Section 127A(3) (b) which required a pamphlet:To be distributed to promote or prejudice the election of a candidate or group of candidates or any placard or poster having reference to an election,Pertinently, it does not include:hand-bills, placards, or posters announcing the details of the election meeting; routines instructions to election agents or workers..The pamphlet with its verses in praise of a deity, with Jadeja's photograph and the BJP's Lotus symbol, and the slogan 'Aapnu Gujarat' (our Gujarat) Aagvu Asarva (distinct and different Asarva)', did not promote the candidate or prejudice his opponent, the Court said. As such, it quashed the proceedings against him.."Bare perusal of the pamphlet (page-37&38) for which, the complaint is filed against the applicant, it cannot be said that it is ''election pamphlet'' within the meaning of Section 127A(3)(b). Thus, the pamphlet page-37 & 38 taken at their face value, it cannot be said that even a prima-facie case is made out against the applicant for the alleged offences. The pamphlet do not contain the promotion of the election or any election agenda nor any reference to the election notified. Once it is found that the offending material – pamphlet (page-37&38) cannot be said to be an ''election pamphlet'', as defined under Section 123A(3)(b) of the Act, it could not be said that prima-facie case is made out against the applicant for the offences under Sections 127A(1), 127A(2)(a) punishable under Section 127A(4) of the Act", the Court said..Exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, the Court closed the case..Read the Judgment:
