IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18469 of 1998 RAJENDRA PRASAD SINGH SON OF SRI SAKALDEEP SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DASRATH KHAP, P.S. MADANPUR, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD…….. ………… PETITIONER Versus STATE OF BIHAR……………………………. OPP. PARTY ----------- FOR THE PETITIONER ;-MR. KRISHNA PRASAD SINGH, SR. ADVOCATE MR. MANINDRA KISHORE SINGH & MR. MITHILESH KR. SINGH, ADVOCATES. -------- 4 26-3-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 13-2- 1998, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in G.O. Case No. 7/98, Trial No. 831/1998, a case under section 133 of Representation of People Act, 1951 and is pending for trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,Aurangabad. According to the F.I.R. lodged by a Sub- Inspector of Police on 10th February,1998, in course of Parliamentary election the informant noticed a 2 black coloured jeep at about 12.45 in the noon near Deo Godown. Its registration number was BEB 0991 and it was carrying Indian National Congress Flag and banner of the petitioner who was candidate of the said party. The informant signaled the vehicle to stop and when it was stopped all the occupants managed to flee away. The driver disclosed his name as Anil Singh and claimed that he was also the owner of the jeep. He could not produce any valid paper for participating in election work but allegedly disclosed that the jeep had been hired by the petitioner for use in relation to election work. The informant seized the aforesaid jeep and lodged a case under section 133 of the Representation of People Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in an earlier election in Aurangabad district in the year 1996 an identical case was lodged against one Satendra Narayan Singh which was quashed by a Bench of this Court by order dated 11-4- 3 1997. A copy of that judgment and order has been annexed as annexure-2. A perusal of the judgment contained in annexure-2 shows that this court examined the ingredients of section 133 and reading the same with section 123 (5) if held that it is necessary for the prosecution to allege that hiring of vehicle or vessel was by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent and the corrupt practice, which was the essence of the offence, would be attracted only if the vehicle engaged by a candidate was found carrying voters contrary to provisions of the Representation of People Act. In that case it was held, in identical situation that there was no material showing allegation or evidence that the vehicle was being used for carrying voters attracting definition of corrupt practice. It was further held that if the supporters of a candidate without consent of a candidate indulged in corrupt practice it 4 cannot attract section 123 (5) of the R.P.Act. In this case also it is noticed that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he was involved in carrying the voters directly or had given his consent for the same. In fact except the driver who was also the owner of the jeep, nobody could be identified who could be described as a voter being carried on the vehicle in question. In view of aforesaid discussions and findings the prayer made in this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner pending vide G.O. case no. 7/98, Trial No. 831/98 before Judicial Magistrate, Ist. Class, Aurangabad is quashed. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)