In a reprieve for BJP’s Chickpet MLA Uday B Garudachar, the High Court of Karnataka has set aside the orders of the trial courts in convicting and sentencing him to two months imprisonment for not furnishing a pending criminal case in his affidavit filed along with the nomination papers while contesting election to the Legislative Assembly in 2018.
Justice Krishna S. Dixit passed the order while allowing a criminal revision petition filed by Mr. Uday challenging the orders of the magistrate and the sessions courts.
The special court of magistrate for trial of cases against MPs and MLAs had convicted him on October 13, 2022; and the special court of sessions to deal with cases against MPs and MLAs on September 11, 2023 had upheld his conviction.
No charges framed
However, the High Court held that findings of the trial courts against him were wrong as he was not required to furnish the information of that particular criminal case as no charge was framed against him in that case.
As per Section 33A (1)(i) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, candidates are required to disclose information about offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more “in a pending case in which a charge has been framed by the court of competent jurisdiction,” the High Court pointed out.
Though Form-26, issued as per the Rule 4A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 framed under the RP Act mentions about FIR numbers and case numbers in courts, the High Court said that the “Rules and the Forms prescribed by the Rules cannot be construed to widen the scope of duty beyond what the Parliament has intended.”
‘Not every criminal case’
“It is not that every criminal case launched against a candidate either by way of registering the FIR or by moving the private complaint, has to be disclosed in the affidavit even when charges have not been framed or cognisance of the offences alleged has not been taken, as the case may be,” the High Court said.
“The courts below were wrongly swayed away by the literal content of Form 26, without adverting to the substantive provisions of section 33A of the Act. This approach is unacceptable, to say the least,” the High Court said while agreeing with petitioner’s contention that proceedings initiated against him was abuse of the process of court.
A clean chit
The Court said, “He [petitioner] is entitled to be relieved of the subject criminal proceeding once for all and spotlessly. He has to be given absolutely a clean chit. It is not that this court does not understand the agony and untold hardship he has undergone all these days because of the subject criminal case”
