Nagpur: Censuring the police for not applying the proper Sections under Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Representation of People’s Act, 1950, against a former BJP MLC, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court held that mere finding Rs 4.75 lakh cash in a vehicle during his campaigning for the parliamentary election is not an offence.
“It is evident that none of the provisions can be invoked against the petitioner. A Government of India notification of February 28, 2014, states that for contesting election for a parliamentary constituency, the maximum limit for election expenses in Maharashtra is Rs 70 lakh. In that context, mere finding of cash of Rs 4.75 lakh cannot be construed as an offence under either of the statute,” a division bench comprising Justice Vinay Joshi and Justice Vrushali Joshi said.
Gold Rate
Thursday 09 Jan. 2025
While quashing the charge sheet against former MLC Sagar Meghe, who had contested the Lok Sabha polls in 2014 from Wardha on Congress ticket, the bench directed the police to take proper care before filing the charge sheet.
“The consequences of filing a charge-sheet are manifold. The person named as an accused needs to obtain bail, attend court and face prosecution. Moreover, uncalled police reports would increase the docket which is ultimately a futile exercise in the courts of law. We expect that the police shall take proper care before filing of charge-sheets, to verify and only on satisfaction file it in the courts of law.”
The Dattapur Police in Amravati had intercepted a vehicle (MH-27/U1515) and seized Rs 4.75 lakh cash, two liquor bottles and election material. On Tehsildar’s complaint, Meghe and the vehicle driver were booked under Sections 171-H and 188 of IPC and 123 of the Representation of the People Act. Meghe challenged the FIR in HC through senior counsel Sunil Manohar.
Clarifying that the material collected during the investigation does not make out a prima facie case, the judges said continuation of prosecution amounts to the abuse of the process of the court. “A little amount of care would have prompted verifying authority to arrive at the conclusion that there exists no material in support of the charges levelled.”
Advocates SV Manohar and Shantanu Khedkar appeared for Sagar and submitted that the sections invoked against Meghe did not fit with the facts of the case.
The bench noted that Section 171-H can be invoked against persons (agents) other than the candidate, who is acting without the authority of the candidate. However, in the present case, it was invoked against the candidate himself.
The bench noted that a person must disobey an order against a public servant for an offence under Section 188, highlighting the need for a promulgated order. However, in the present case, no order was promulgated.
The bench said, “The sections invoked by the police do not apply at all. A little amount of care would have prompted verifying authority to arrive at the conclusion that there exists no material in support of the charges levelled. In that case, the police would not have filed a chargesheet in court.”
