CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Ramesh Kumar Das vs State of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 15 December 2014 · Citation: (2015) 1 BBCJ 163 : (2015) 1 BLJud 142

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashutosh Kumar, J.
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No.45126 of 2011 (Arising Out of PS.Case No. -493 Year-2005 Thana -null District-Samastipur)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 379 words

Ashutosh Kumar, J. (Oral) - The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 14.12.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial magistrate, Samastipur, whereby cognizance under Section 171(E)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 129 (3) of the Representation of People Act, has been taken in connection with Samastipur (Town) PS Case No. 493 of 2005.

2.

A Circle Officer lodged a written report alleging that despite the fact that the petitioner was made Patrolling Magistrate during the Assembly Elections of 2005, he accepted the hospitality of a local businessman and a room in the local hotel was booked by such businessman. This acceptance of hospitality was in violation of the Model Code of Conduct during the election time and that made the petitioner liable for being prosecuted for offences under section 171 (E) of the Indian Penal Code which is the offence dealing with bribery along with the provisions of Section 129(3) of the Representation of People Act.

3.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order, submits that prior to the petitioner having been designated as Patrolling Magistrate he worked as Commercial taxes Officer in the neighbouring Sub-division namely Dalsingsarai. He further submits that there was no occasion for him to have a room booked in Samastipur for the purpose of staying in the night. That apart, assuming but not admitting the allegations to be true, learned Counsel submits that there is no averments in the first Information Report that the money as rent for the room was paid by local businessman. If a room is booked in the name of somebody that by itself would not constitute the offence of bribery.

4.

Any person can take help of local person to get a room booked. In the absence of any allegation of money having been paid by the local businessman the petitioner cannot be held guilty for offence under Section 171 (E) of the Indian Penal Code.

5.

Likewise, no offence under Section 129 (3) of the Representation of People Act also cannot at all be said to be made out.

6.

Perused the records.

7.

The order taking cognizance, on the above mentioned score itself, does not appear to be sustainable in the eyes of law. The same is quashed.

8.

This application is allowed.