Summary
The elected candidate’s appeal became infructuous after the Assembly term ended. In the Returning Officer’s connected appeal, the Court set aside a direction to prosecute him for perjury. Acceptance of the election petitioner’s account did not itself establish intentional false evidence by the officer. His statements were not shown to be irreconcilably false, and prosecution was not expedient in the circumstances. The merits of the finding of improper rejection of nomination were not decided.
Issues
- Whether inconsistencies attributed to the Returning Officer justified prosecution for perjury.
- Whether the elected candidate’s challenge survived expiry of the Assembly term.
Provisions considered
- Section 193, Indian Penal Code, 1860Intentional false evidence had to be established; mere discrepancies or preference for another witness’s account were insufficient. (¶¶ 11, 12, 14, 16)
- Section 340, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The court also had to assess whether prosecution was expedient in the interests of justice on the whole factual context. (¶¶ 13, 14, 17, 18, 19)
Held
- The elected candidate had completed the Assembly term after the challenged order was stayed. His appeal no longer survived, and the Court did not determine the correctness of the improper-rejection finding. (¶¶ 3, 6, 9, 16)
- Contradictory statements do not invariably justify a perjury prosecution: intentional falsehood must be established. The officer’s account of receipt and processing of the last nomination was reconcilable, and imprecision about events recalled years later did not establish deliberate falsity. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 14)
- The election court had not identified a deliberate falsehood or used the available video record to establish that the officer’s testimony contradicted the events. It had also given him no notice or opportunity concerning the proposed perjury action. The prosecution direction could not stand on the reasoning adopted. (¶¶ 12, 13, 16)
- Even where intentional false evidence is found, the court must separately consider expediency in the interests of justice. The factual context, absence of a proved ulterior purpose in refusing the incomplete nomination, passage of time and the officer’s retirement did not justify exposing him to prosecution here. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
Result
Elected candidate’s appeal disposed of as infructuous; Returning Officer’s appeal allowed and direction to lodge the Section 193 complaint set aside. Parties bear their own costs.