Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9061 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Prafful Chandra Sudhanshu S/O Nagendra Prasad Resident Of Mohalla Rupaspur Jalalpur, Nahar Par, Ward No. 40, P.O. Danapur Cantt., P.S. Rupaspur, District Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Election Commission (Municipality), Through The State Election Commissioner, 3rd Floor, Sone Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna 2. The State Election Commissioner (Municipality), 3rd Floor, Sone Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna 3. The Secretary, State Election Commission (Municipality), 3rd Floor, Sone Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna 4. The Returning Officer, Danapur Nagar Parishad Municipal Election 2012, P.O. Danapur Cantt., District Patna 5. Shri Shatrughan Prasad S/O Not Known To The Petitioner Resident Of Ward No. 40, Danapur Nagar Parishad, P.O. Danapur Cantt, P.S. Rupaspur, District Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Advocate For the S.E.C. : Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Advocate Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN CAV ORDER 3 29 -06-2012 The petitioner is a candidate contesting in the Danapur Nagar Prarishad election from Ward No. 40. The petitioner accordingly filed his nomination paper before respondent no. 4, the Returning Officer on 21.4.2012. The date of scrutiny for the nomination paper was fixed on 26.4.2012 which was accepted by the Returning Officer. The nomination paper of the other two candidates was rejected and the petitioner remained the sole candidate. An objection was filed by respondent no. 5 on Patna High Court CWJC No.9061 of 2012 (3) dt.16-05-2012 2 / 7 2 28.4.2012 which was forwarded to the Circle Officer, Danapur for the purposes of conducting an enquiry. The allegation in the complaint was that the wife of the petitioner had purchased 1 Katha of land which was not mentioned in the affidavit filed by the petitioner along with his nomination paper. The matter was sent to the Circle Officer, Danapur to make an enquiry. The Circle Officer recorded that the name of the petitioner’s wife has not been entered into Register II. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his wife had filed an application before the Circle Officer, Danapur for valuation of the plot which was purchased by her. The said application was filed by the petitioner on 20.3.2012 and on the same date the Revenue Karamchari had mentioned the value of the land in the margin of the application and had recommended to the Circle Officer for issuance of valuation certificate but the Circle Officer, Danapur refused to value the property of the petitioner on the ground that her name had not been entered in Register II of the Circle Office. On the basis of the aforesaid facts it is submitted that although it is a fact that the petitioner had purchased the property but her name was not recorded by the Circle Officer and neither in the Register II and as such, it cannot be said that the information disclosed by the Patna High Court CWJC No.9061 of 2012 (3) dt.16-05-2012 3 / 7 3 petitioner was deliberately suppressed. Apart from what has been stated aforesaid, the question that has been raised in this writ application is that the date of scrutiny of the nomination paper was 26.4.2012. No objections to the nomination were filed at that time. Two days later objection was filed by the respondent no. 5 making the allegations as explained above. The Returning Officer called for a report and rejected the nomination of the petitioner. Sub rule (4) of Rule 46 enjoins that Returning Officer will hold scrutiny on the date appointed and shall not allow any adjournment of the proceeding. It further specifies that if an objection is made the candidate concerned may be allow the time to rebut the allegation not later than following day of the scrutiny. The argument on behalf of the petitioner is that once his nomination was accepted on 26.4.2012 respondent no. 5 did not have the right to interfere in the matter and the only remedy available to the respondent no. 5 was to challenge the election process by filing an election petition. In this context, this Court cannot hold that the complaint was filed after a delay. It is another fact that the enquiry and the subsequent order has been rendered on 29th April, 2012, which ought to have been done much earlier in view of the fact that the elections were to take place on 17th May, 2012 and in Patna High Court CWJC No.9061 of 2012 (3) dt.16-05-2012 4 / 7 4 some districts on 22nd May, 2012. The second question argued on behalf of the petitioner is based on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Peoples Union For Civil Liberties versus Union of India [(2003) 4 SCC Page 399. Paragraph 112 deals with the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court while discussing the issues raised in the writ application. This Court is concerned with the conclusion at sub paragraph (9) of paragraph 123 which reads as follows: “The Election Commission has to issue revised instructions to ensure implementation of Section 33-A subject to what is laid down in this judgment regarding the cases in which cognizance has been taken. The Election Commission’s orders related to disclosure of assets and liabilities will still hold good and continue to be operative. However, Direction 4 of para 14 insofar as verification of assets and liabilities by means of summary enquiry and rejection of nomination paper on the ground of furnishing wrong information or suppressing material information should not be enforce.” The said finding of the Supreme Court is laid down the direction given in paragraph 14 (4) of the order passed by the Eelction Commission of India dated 28th June, 2002. Sub- Patna High Court CWJC No.9061 of 2012 (3) dt.16-05-2012 5 / 7 5 para 4 provides as

Applicable IPC Section: 177

Statute Text:
Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code. Knowingly furnishing false information to a public servant. Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both; or, if the information which he is legally bound to give respects the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.