- (1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 18.04.2016, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Hanumangarh (hereinafter "the appellate court") whereby the learned appellate court has partly allowed the petitioner's appeal and while maintaining the sentence for offence under Section 420 IPC, acquitted the petitioner for offences under Sections 468 & 471 IPC. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 420, 468 & 471 IPC by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tibbi, District Hanumangarh (hereinafter "the trial court") vide his judgment dated 26.03.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.25/2008.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 10.10.2007, the complainant Chand Singh submitted a complaint before the competent court alleging that on 04.02.2005, the election for the post of Sarpanch and Panches at village Surewala was conducted. The complainant and the petitioner Balbir Singh contested the election on the post of Panch from ward No.14. After the election, the petitioner Balbir Singh was declared as elected Panch. The complainant alleged that the petitioner Balbir Singh was not eligible to contest the said election and despite this fact, he submitted nomination form with wrong facts before the Election Officer. In this regard, the complainant filed an election petition before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh to declare the election of the petitioner as Panch null and void. On 24.08.2007 the learned ACJM accepted the election petition and on 04.02.2005, petitioner's election as a Panch from ward No.14 of village Surewala was declared null and void. On the basis of above complaint, the concerned Magistrate sent the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the concerned Police Station for registration of FIR. On receiving the complaint, the Police registered FIR No.361/2007 for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC and started investigation. After thorough investigation, Police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 468 & 471 IPC. The petitioner denied the charges and claimed trial. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In defence, the petitioner examined two witnesses and got exhibited 4 documents. The learned trial Court, thereafter, heard final arguments and by its judgment dated 26.03.2014 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 468 & 471 IPC.
(3.) Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court, accused-petitioner approached the learned appellate Court. The appellate Court vide its judgment dated 18.04.2015 partly allowed the appeal and while maintaining the sentence for offence under Section 420 IPC acquitted the petitioner for offence under Sections 468 & 471 IPC. Hence this petition. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned trial court convicted the petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 468 & 471 IPC but the learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal and maintained the conviction of the petitioner to the extent of offence under Section 420 IPC. Counsel further argued that the ingredients of offence under Section 420 IPC are not made out. So far as the offence of cheating (under Section 420 IPC) is concerned, it is no case of the prosecution that the petitioner induced anybody dishonestly and thereby deceived such person to deliver any property or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of the valuable security, therefore, ex-facie, the offence of cheating is not made out against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Amita Trivedi & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr, 2013 2 RajLW 1313 and argued that for disclosure of false facts in the nomination paper, at the highest, the offence, if any, which can be said to be made out against the accused would be the offence under Section 177 IPC and for the purpose of launching a prosecution for the offence under Section 177 IPC, the prosecution can only be launched as per Section 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. Thus before the prosecution for the offence under Section 177 IPC can be initiated, it is mandatory that the public servant before whom the alleged false information has been furnished, should file a complaint then only the court can take cognizance of the offence. Obviously, the returning officer before whom the nomination form was furnished has not filed any complaint against the petitioner, therefore, no criminal action can be taken against the petitioner. Counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chokha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, SB Cr. Misc. Petition No.250/2016, decided on 31.05.2016. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supports the impugned judgment of the learned appellate court. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment dated 18.04.2016, passed by the appellate court as also material available on record.;