Corrupt Practice Under Representation Of Peoples Act Does Not Call For Criminal Action: Delhi Court Dismisses Criminal Case Against PM Modi, Amit Shah [Read Order]

The Court of Special Judge Ajay Kumar Kuhar at Rouse Avenue District Court dismissed the complaint filed by one Shrikant Prasad while stating that the allegations are devoid of any substance to invoke "criminal jurisdiction".

It said,

"The averment in the complaint is that false promises were made prior to the General Elections in 2014, which amounts to a corrupt practice as per Section 123 (2) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. I need not go further in this issue because corrupt practice as defined in Section 123, Chapter-I, part-VIl of the Representation of Peoples Act does not call for a criminal action. The offences which are punishable under the Act are incorporated in Section 125 to 136 under the Representation Peoples Act, 1951."

Even otherwise, the Court said, the complaint fails on the ground that there is no prior sanction either under Section 197 CrPC or under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

"For want of such a sanction, no cognizance can be taken in the present case," the Court said.

Background

The Complainant had alleged that prior to the General Elections for Lok Sabha in 2014, Mr. Modi made a false and fraudulent speech with dishonest intention stating that every citizen of India will get Rs.15 lacs in his account.

It was contended that the said promise was made to induce the voters to vote for him and the Ministers had no intention to fulfil it; thus, amounting to a 'Corrupt Practice' under Section 123 of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.

It was also stated in the complaint that the Prime Minister criminally misappropriated government property entrusted to him by privatization of various organizations and government companies like BPCL and there are further plans to privatize Air India and other PSUs.

Thus, the complaint was registered for the offences of Cheating under Section 420 of IPC, Criminal Breach of trust under Section 406 of IPC and Section 13 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Findings

Firstly, the Court stated the complaint is liable to dismissed for want of sanction. It said,

"At the very outset, when an offence is alleged to be committed by a public servant while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty, the court cannot take cognizance of the offence without a prior sanction under Section 197 of Criminal Procedure Code. For an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, particularly under Section 13, no court can take cognizance of the said offence except with the prior sanction of the competent authority under Section 19 of PC Act."

Reliance was placed on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Paras Nath Singh (2009) 6 SCC 372.

So far as allegations of false promise is concerned, the Court said that the same does not warrant criminal action as per Representation Peoples Act, 1951.

Lastly, on the allegations of misappropriation by privatization of Public Sector Undertaking, the Court said that the same is "without any content and substance showing any criminal intent."

It observed, "These are policy decisions of the government in power which cannot be interfered with by the court under Criminal Jurisdiction."

Further, the Court was of the opinion that mere averment in the complaint without a supporting evidence regarding the commission of an offence will not justify any adverse action.

Whereas the Complainant had submitted that he does not have any evidence but the court may exercise its power under Section 202 CrPC for making inquiry, the Court declined this request for the following reason:

"To reach the stage of Section 202 Cr.PC, cognizance is required to be taken of the offence. But in the present case, for want of sanction, no cognizance can be taken."

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order