FACTS OF THE CASE- The Issue of the case was regarding contesting of election to disclose the information not only of cases in which charges have been framed but also cases in which cognizance has been taken by the Court. The laws applied were The Representation of The People Act, 1951 Sections 33A and 125A Conduct of Election Rules 1961, Rule 4A - Election candidate - Disclosure of information - Form 26 mandates disclosure of information by contesting candidate of not only cases in which charges have been framed but also cases in which cognizance has been taken by Court - Any false declaration or concealment of information attract provisions of section 125A of Act. The Case revolves around the general elections to the State Legislative Assembly in Maharastra in the Year 2014, The appellant– Satish Ukey is a practicing Advocate of the Bombay High Court.
The first respondent is an elected member of the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly and is presently holding the post of Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra ( DEVENDRA GANGADHARRAO FADNAVISDEVENDRA ). The complaint filed by the appellant contains an allegation that in the affidavit in Form-26, prescribed by the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. which had accompanied the nomination papers of the first respondent details of two cases in which cognizance was taken being i) First case relating to the Sectiion 500 Indian Penal Code, 1860 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur ii) under Sections 468, 471, 218, 467, 420 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur. Consequently, according to the appellant – complainant, an infraction of the provisions of Section 125-A has been committed for which the first respondent is liable to be prosecuted in a court of competent jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION- Rohatgi had argued that Fadnavis had disclosed all cases pending against him and inadvertently left out two cases in which only cognizance had been taken but charges had not been framed He said this could not be a ground to prosecute him under Section 125A, which entails a maximum punishment of six-month imprisonment. In the light of the view taken in view of the clear subject matter made in the complaint to the effect that the First Respondent had knowledge of the two cases against him which had not been mentioned in the affidavit filed by the First Respondent along with his nomination papers, the conclusion that the order of the learned trial Court upheld by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2018 is legally not tenable and the same deserves to be set aside.