THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No :1414 of 2009 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 02-06-2009, passed by the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal on the memo filed by the Sub Inspector of police, Subedari, seeking permission to investigate the case for the offence under Section 126 (2) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’). 2. When the revision came up for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 3. The background facts in a nutshell leading to filing of this revision by the District Election Officer & Collector, Warangal, are that the District Election Officer submitted a report to the Station House Officer, Subedari, Hanankonda on 31-05-2008 alleging inter alia that the 2nd respondent herein addressed the media on 28-05- 2008 during the prohibited period and it controverts the provisions of Section 126 (1) of the Act. 4. Paragraph No.10 of the complaint reads as hereunder: “It is submitted the acts of Sri N.Chandra Babu Naidu of addressing the media after the deadline of 27-05-2008 at 5.00 p.m. squarely attracts Section 126 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Nara Chandra Babu Naidu and Maa TV, TV-9 have committed the offence thereunder for which he is liable to be prosecuted and punished. There cannot be any justification on the part of Chandra Babu Naidu and the Maa TV, TV-9 channel in addressing displaying to the public the election matter by means of TV and other similar apparatus during the period of 48 hours ending with the hour fixed for the conclusion of the poll for bye- election which are being conducted to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Andhra Pradesh and also the Parliament. As per Section 126 (2) of the Act, Nara Chandra Babu Naidu is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extent to two years or with fine or with both”. 5. Since the offence under Section 126 (2) of the Act is a non- cognizable one, the Station House Officer filed requisition before the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class seeking permission to investigate the case. 6. Learned Magistrate returned the requisition on 02-06-2008 on the point of jurisdiction. The return endorsement reads as hereunder: “This petition is not maintainable on the point of jurisdiction. Hence returned”. The said return endorsement is assailed in this Revision Case. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the speech delivered by the 2nd respondent in the evening of 28- 05-2008 at Press Conference in Krishna District, which has been telecasted in the areas, wherein the elections are scheduled on 29-05-2008, amounts to election matter which is prohibited from being displayed during the period of 48 hours ending with the hour fixed for conclusion of the poll for any election under Section 126 of the Act. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court of the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class and therefore the return endorsement made on the requisition submitted by the Station House Officer, Subedari is legal and proper. 10. I have given my innocuous consideration to the return endorsement. The return endorsement made by the learned Magistrate appears to be a ministerial act. The complainant is at liberty to resubmit the requisition detailing the cause of action, which occurred within the jurisdiction of the Court. Reserving the said liberty to the petitioner, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Petitioner has to resubmit the requisition answering the query raised by the IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class and invite order thereof. ____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 25th August, 2009 Tsy