IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.28912 of 2011 Monika Bedi, D/o Prem Kumar Bedi, R/o 1404-B Wingh Galaxy Hights, Link Road, Near Bangour Nagar Signal (above ICICI Bank), Goregaon West, Mumbai. ….Petitioner. Versus The State of Bihar ----------- 2 15.09.2011 Petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.01.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka in connection with Belhar P.S. Case No.150 of 2010 whereby and where under petitioner along with others has been summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under Sections 171(H) and 188 of the I.P.C. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that neither petitioner happens to be a candidate nor she had applied for permission. She only came in support of the independent candidate Rajkishore Prasad @ Pappu Yadav. Then submitted that petitioner was not aware with the fact nor was informed by the administration that the time allotted for propagating the candidature of Rajkishore Prasad @ Pappu Yadav was in between 12:30 to 1:00 P.M. and as that time elapsed, therefore, she was not permitted to convene and attend the people. So submitted that in absence of the aforesaid administrative lapse petitioner cannot be held accountable. It has further been submitted that none of the Sections where under petitioner has been summoned is found to be applicable. 2 At the other hand the State opposed. It is evident from own submission of the petitioner as well as from the written report that petitioner had landed at Project Girls High School, Belhar after the time allotted to the candidate on whose behalf she addressed a rally. The time slot was allotted to the candidate on his request for enabling the petitioner to address the rally. Admittedly, petitioner had addressed the rally after the allotted time slot; therefore, she had violated the order. Ignorance of law is no excuse. Therefore, it was incumbent upon her to have inquired from candidate whether she was within time slot allotted by the administration. With regard to application of particular Section, the cognizance will not command rather it will ensue on the basis of the charge and so, for the present petitioner should not have any grievance for having a particular Section visualizing in the order by which she has been summoned to face trial. With the aforesaid finding I do not see it a fit case to entertain the petition and is accordingly dismissed. PN (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)