"While Expecting His Leader To Be Honest, Voter Should Be Honest; Corrupt Voter Cannot Expect His Leader To Be Honest": Telangana High Court

"While expecting his leader to be honest, voter should be honest. A corrupt voter cannot expect his leader to be honest" observed the Telangana High Court while dismissing the revision petition filed by A Revanth Reddy, member of Telangana Legislative Assembly, challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court to try proceedings in "cash for vote scam case" pending before the special Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) Court.

A single judge bench comprising of Justice K Lakshman, while analyzing the importance of voting under the constitutional scheme, observed thus:

"Secret Ballot System was also introduced to maintain the secrecy of the Vote. It is also relevant to note that the Apex Court in one of the judgments held that 'secrecy of ballot is sacrosanct' It is also relevant to note that "while expecting his leader to be honest, voter should be honest". "A corrupt voter cannot expect his leader to be honest".

The case pertains to MLC Elections for Legislative Council wherein Revanth was accused of offering Rs. Crore bribe to then nominated MLA Elvis Stephenson for securing his vote in favour of TDM party in the elections. Revanth was accused of offences under sec. 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sec. 120B read with sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

It was the case of the petitioner that the provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act are wholly inapplicable as the filed of electoral malpractices is covered under Chapter IXA of IPC therefore ACB did not have the jurisdiction to register FIR in the case.

It was thus submitted that offering bribe does not attract the offence for punishment under sec. 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

Furthermore, submitting that right to vote of an elector is a statuory right, it was submitted by the petitioner that an MLA exercising such a right is acting in his capacity as an elector and cannot be conflated with exercise of his public duties in his capacity as a public servant, offences of which are governed by IPC but not the PC Act.

Therefore, it was the case of petitioner that the ACB had erroneously assumed the jurisdiction to investigate into election related offences and filed charge sheet erroneously.

Analyzing the facts of the case, the Court relied upon relevant extracts of Constituent Assembly Debates and the views of the Drafting Committee while introducing voting and citizenship in the Constitution.

Quoting Dr. BR Ambedka, H.V. Kamath and Alladi Kuppu Swamy Ayyar, the Court opined that "Dr. B. R. Ambedkar had voiced that ultimately, democratic Government was inseparable from the right to vote, and it was voting that would prove to be the one of the harbinger (s) of political education."

Observing that while expecting his leader to be honest, voter should be honest, the Court observed that the ACB officials after conducting investigation laid down charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused persons involved in the case.

On the aspect of determining the 'jurisdictional fact, the Court was of the view thus:

"A 'jurisdictional fact' is one on existence or non-existence of which depends assumption or refusal to assume jurisdiction by a Court, it is explained as a fact which must exist before a Court can properly assume jurisdiction in respect of subject matter which the Statute does not confer on it and if by deciding erroneously the fact on which jurisdiction depends the Court or Tribunal exercises the jurisdiction then the order is violated. Thus, it is clear that existence of jurisdictional fact is sine qua non for exercise of power."

Furthermore, on the aspect of sec. 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court observed that the Act was intended to make the existing anti-corruption Law more effective by widening the coverage and strengthening the provisions of the Act.

"It is the mens rea of the bribe giver that has to be considered in a case and it should be sufficient to render him liable if his object in bribing or attempting to bribe the public servant was to induce the public servant to do an official act in exercise of his official function."

With the aforesaid observations, the Court observed that there is prima facie material to frame charge under Section 12 of the P.C. Act and other Sections of IPC.

Noting that the discharge petitions filed by other co accused persons were dismissed by the Court, it was observed thus:

"The petitioner herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned order by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the present Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed."

Title: A. Revanth Reddy v. The State of Telangana through ACB, CIU, Hyderabad

Click Here To Read Order