Representation Of Peoples Act | S.127A Prescribes Non-Cognizable Offence, Magistrate's Permission Mandatory For Police Investigation: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court has said that offence under Section 127-A of the Representation of People Act (Restrictions on the printing of pamphlets, posters, etc) is a non-cognizable offence and hence, permission for police investigation must be granted by Magistrate in terms of Section 155 of CrPC. A single judge bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav allowed the petition filed...
The Karnataka High Court has said that offence under Section 127-A of the Representation of People Act (Restrictions on the printing of pamphlets, posters, etc) is a non-cognizable offence and hence, permission for police investigation must be granted by Magistrate in terms of Section 155 of CrPC.
A single judge bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav allowed the petition filed by one Mahantesh Koujalagi and set aside the chargesheet filed against him under section 127-A of the Act. The bench remanded the matter back to the initial stage of information being made to the police authorities.
The petitioner claimed that offence under Section 127-A of the Act, even if made out, would result in imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months or with fine. Accordingly, this would be a non-cognizable offence.
Further, there was no material on record that would indicate that permission of the Magistrate was obtained prior to investigation. Thus, the charge sheet is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Following which the bench said,
"It is to be noticed that in light of the offence under Section 127-A being a non-cognizable offence, permission must be granted in terms of Section 155 of Cr.P.C. and on this sole ground alone, the investigation made and charge sheet filed are to be set aside and the matter is to be remitted to the stage of information being made out to the police authorities on 07.06.2016."
It added,
"If information is placed before the Magistrate for obtaining permission, the reference must be of the informant and the Magistrate to pass orders by applying his mind and keeping in mind the guidelines as laid down in the judgment in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangalagi) vs. The State of Karnataka - ILR 2020 KAR 630."
Case Title: MAHANTESH KOUJALAGI v STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5528/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 344
Date of Order: 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
Appearance: Advocate M. SHARASS CHANDRA for petitioner; HCGP ROHITH B.J for respondent