Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court recently took note of the offering of gratifications such as money, food, prizes, and similar incentives to electors during elections. Such gratifications would demolish the very basic structure of the Constitution and democracy, said Justice B Pugalendhi. 

The court was dealing with a plea where petitioners faced a charge under Section 171(E) of the IPC which provides punishment for bribery.

The allegation against the petitioners was that they had distributed money to the voters during the election conducted in the year 2011. After ten years, the final reports were filed and the concerned Judicial Magistrates took cognizance of the same. The petitioners urged the court to quash the proceedings pending against them on the ground that the final reports were filed beyond the period of limitation.

Apart from that, the petitioners contended that for the offence under Sections 171(E) and 188 IPC, a private complaint has to be filed before the concerned Judicial Magistrate as per the provisions under Section 195(1A)(1) CrPC, which was not done in the present cases.

The single judge bench took note of the strategy being adopted by the petitioners to get the case quashed, despite the delay was attributed to the prosecution.

The bench said that the legislature has not treated the offence of bribery for elections proportionate to its gravity and has treated it as an offence punishable for imprisonment to an extent of one year.

"Resultantly, the practice of distributing money/gift to the voters have not been reduced and the cases reported for distribution of money during elections are rising in every election," the bench highlighted.

The bench opined that since the penal actions contemplated for the offence of bribery are not effective, the cases are registered for some statistical purpose and the investigation agencies are not prosecuting the cases any further.

Court said that the case at hand was a perfect example of the same.

For the cases registered in the year 2011 for distribution of money, final reports are filed after ten years, enabling the parties to get the proceedings quashed on the grounds available under the Code, court asserted. 

Apart from that, on the issue of bribery for elections, court referred to a recent news report that for the ensuing parliamentary elections, Rs.4,650 Crore have been seized so far.

Its hardly 15 days have passed and 65 more days are there for this election season. The amount so far recovered for these 15 days is higher than the amount which has been recovered during the entire election conducted in the year 2019, the bench said.

Therefore, in order to ascertain the mechanism that is in vogue for effective prosecution of cases of bribery for elections, the high court directed the Government Advocate (Crl. Side) to get instructions as to the:

(i) number of cases registered in the previous Parliamentary Election, 2019 and State Assembly Election, 2021 for the distribution of money / bribery to the voters;

(ii) the stage of those cases; and

(iii) details of the cases, if any, ended in conviction.

Court requested the State Election Commission, Tamil Nadu, to also explain as to how they are following up with the cases that are being registered for electoral offences.

The Election Commission shall also offer its suggestions, if any, for effective prevention of gratification to the voters, court ordered while asking Counsel for the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission to get instructions in this regard.

Court appointed Adv R.Anand as Amicus Curiae in the matter to assist the court. 

Case Title:  Dhanalakshmi v Sub Inspector of Police