'Offence U/S 171H IPC Can Only Be Done By A Person Other Than Election Candidate': Karnataka HC Sets Aside Case Against BJP Leader Karunakarareddy

A single bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav quashed the charge under Section 171H (Illegal payments in connection with an election) of IPC alleged against him and held,

"Clearly, the person who is an accused under Section 171H of IPC would be a person other than the candidate. In light of the same and in light of the only offence being made out in the charge sheet is Section 171H of IPC, the case against petitioner No.1 as regards the offence under Section 171H of IPC cannot be permitted to be continued as Section 171H of IPC would not apply as regards the petitioner No.1."

It however refused relief to other co-accused.

Section 171H of IPC reads as follows:

"171H. Illegal payments in connection with an election:—Whoever without the general or special authority in writing of a candidate incurs or authorises expenses on account of the holding of any public meeting, or upon any advertisement, circular or publication, or in any other way whatsoever for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of such candidate, shall be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees:

Provided that if any person having incurred any such expenses not exceeding the amount of ten rupees without authority obtains within ten days from the date on which such expenses were incurred the approval in writing of the candidate, he shall be deemed to have incurred such expenses with the authority of the candidate." (emphasis supplied)

A FIR was registered against Karunakarareddy under the said provision based on the complaint filed by the Block Education Officer and Chief of Flying Squad. Upon enquiry and after having collected photographs, a complaint was lodged with respondent No.1 and FIR was registered as regards the offence under Section 171H of IPC.

Advocate B. Sappannavar appearing for the accused referring to Section 171H of IPC and submitted that as regards petitioner No.1 i.e., accused No.1, Section 171H of IPC cannot be invoked as Section 171H of IPC relates to acts done by a person other than the candidate.

The government pleader argued that as regards accused Nos. 2 to 4, who are the other petitioners, the matter would require looking into the evidence and it would be premature at this stage for the Court to enter upon the appreciation of evidence, and liberty must be reserved to the other accused to seek an appropriate remedy before the trial Court at an appropriate stage.

The court on hearing both parties said "There is substantial merit in the contention of the petitioners that as regards petitioner No.1, the offence under Section 171H of IPC as made out would not lie.

Further, it said,

Further, the court said, "Accordingly, proceedings against petitioner No.1/ accused No.1 in C.C.No. 207/2018 is liable to be set aside. The charge sheet No.27/2 cv 018 as regards petitioner No.1 is set aside and the petition as regards petitioner No.1 is allowed. As regards the other petitioners, i.e., petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 / accused Nos. 2 to 4, learned counsel for the petitioners seeking permission to withdraw the petition. Accordingly, the petition as regards petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 /accused Nos. 2 to 4 is dismissed."

Case Title: Karunakarareddy v. State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Petition No.8898/2018

Date Of Order: 20th Day Of September, 2021

Appearance: Advocate B. Sappannavar for petitioners; Advocate Rachaiah, for R1.