Neki Ram vs State of Haryana

R.C. Kathuria, J.—Neki Ram-petitioner was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hansi vide order dated 29.5.1991 u/s 171-F of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as, ''IPC'') and sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a find of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner/ accused filed criminal Appeal No. 50 of 1991 which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Hisar as per order dated 6.11.1991 upholding the conviction of the accused u/s 171-F IPC and reducing the sentence from simple imprisonment form six months to simple imprisonment of three months while maintaining the sentence of fine and in default of payment of fine.

The present case came to be registered on the statement of Ram Singh (PW-1) Assistant Food and Supplies Officer, Hansi, According to his version, on 6.8.1988, he alongwith Charan Dass (PW-3) Clerk, Co-operative Societies Department, Daya Nand, Agricultural Inspector, Badala, Hawa Singh, Clerk, Co-operative Societies Department, Amar Singh, Clerk, Agricultural Department and Constable Dharam Pal was present in connection with the panchayat election duty at Booth No.1, Pocket No. 71 in village Dhanipal. The polling hours were between 8.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. At about 3.00 P.M. Neki Ram, petitioner/accused came to Booth No.1 in order to cast his vote. After obtaining the ballot paper, he casted his vote for the office of Panch. Thereafter, he obtained another ballot for casting vote for the office of Sarpanch. The accused was noticed by the complainant inserting his hand inside the pocket of his shirt which aroused the suspicion of the complainant who was the Presiding Officer of the Booth. While accused was in the process of casting his votes in the ballot box of Bhagat Singh, who was a candidate for the office of Sarpanch, he was apprehended by the complainant with the help of the polling staff. Ballot papers, 16 in number whose serial numbers had been detailed in the report lodged which were issued by Charan Dass were recovered from his possession. Report Ex.PA in this regard was made by Ram Singh to Assistant Sub Inspector Chet Ram (PW-2) on the basis of which present case was registered in the Police Station. Hansi. The Investigating Officer took into possession 16 ballot papers vide seizure memo Ex.PB. On completion of the investigation, accused was challenged. He was accordingly charged u/s 171-F IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to connect the accused with the crime, prosecution examined Ram Singh, Assistant Food and Supplies Officer (PW-1), Chet Ram, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-2) and Charan Dass (PW-3). When examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as, ''the Code''), accused rendered a plea of complete denial. On appraisal of evidence, the trial Magistrate accepted the prosecution version and convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed above. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Hisar as per order dated 6.11.1991 referred to earlier. Hence the present appeal.

In order to bring home the charge u/s 171-F IPC, the prosecution has to establish the ingredients of the offence laid down in Section 171-F IPC Mens rea is a constituent of the offence under this Section and the same is to be judged from the circumstances of the case. From the statements of Ram Singh, complainant and Charan Dass, who were admittedly present at the polling booth No.1 located in village Dhanipal on 6.8.1988, it is clearly spelled out that the petitioner/ accused had come to cast his vote there at 3.00 P.M. After casting his vote for the election of Panch and Sarpanch, he tried to cast other 16 votes which were found in his possession. It has come in the statement of Charan Dass that these 16 votes were valid and genuine votes. Though Charan Dass had not been able to explain as to how accused had been able to procure these votes but the fact remains that these were found in his possession and while he was about to cast these votes, he was apprehended by the complainant with the help of the polling staff. Accused had tried to render explanation in this regard as he maintained that he had picked up the ballot papers lying on the floor and wanted to put them in the ballot box. This explanation merited no acceptance by the Courts below.

Faced with the above evidence, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused prayed for his release on probation mainly on the ground that he is a government servant and if the benefit of probation is not given to him, his service would be liable to be terminated. The prayer made, as such, cannot be accepted because it cannot be ignored that being a government servant it was his primary duty to ensure that the validity and sancity of the election process was not violated, rather, he himself indulged in casting votes on behalf of 16 other persons with the help of 16 ballot papers which he had procured in a dubious manner after having gained access to the ballot box. The Sessions Judge, Hisar has already taken a lenient view and reduced the sentence awarded by the trial court and no further interference is called for in this regard.

For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is consequently dismissed.