Karnataka High Court Quashes 'Voter Bribery' Case Against MLA Shashikala Jolle

The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiated against Legislator Shashikala Jolle who was charged under sections 171(E) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 123 of Representation of People Act, 1951 during the 2023 State Assembly elections.

A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed the petition filed by her and said “The proceedings in Crime No.52/2023 of Nipani Town Police Station, now pending in CC No.2990/2023 on the file of learned JMFC, Nipani, for the offences punishable under sections 120(1) & 133 of Representation of People Act, 1951 and also for the offence punishable under Section 171(E) of IPC, 1860 are hereby quashed. Petitioner is set free of the subject case.”

The police after investigation had filed chargesheet against Jolle and one Yuvaraj Donawade, it was alleged that Yuvaraj was campaigning for Jolle and he was found with Rs 10,000 in cash, voters list, handbills with the lotus symbol and containing the photos of the candidate and thus he was luring the voters.

The petitioner argued that what all has been alleged in the FIR/Charge Sheet do not disclose commission of any offence and the ingredients of the alleged offences are lacking. The order of the learned Magistrate which grants permission is as cryptic as can be and further it does not disclose any application of mind nor it is reasoned.

The prosecution opposed the plea contending that looking at the entire material of the chargesheet filed by the police after investigation, it cannot be said that the proceedings are unsustainable. If petitioner faces the trial, no prejudice would be caused to her and that the same would do justice to herself and to the public interest. Even otherwise, petitioner can tap the provisions for discharge or the like, at the hands of the learned Magistrate himself, instead of pressing this petition.

The bench referring to section 171 (E) noted that In order to fit into the definition of 'bribery' the requirement is that there should be a person who gives or at least offers to give any gratification as a reward for exercising the electoral right or for having exercised such a right, by another person. Thus, there should be a minimum of two persons involved in the act, namely one who bribes or offers to bribe and the other who is bribed or offered bribe.

Following which it held “What emerges from the complaint is that a particular person was carrying the money and that the same has been seized since it was suspected to be used for electoral offences. All that does not amount to the offence of bribery, even if the allegations are taken at their face value, and therefore there is no scope for invoking section 171(E) of IPC, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner.”

Stating that Section 123 deals with certain acts as corrupt practices. It said ““Employing the vehicle or vessel as contemplated in the above provision, is a sine qua non for the invocation of section 133. It is nobody's case that something of the kind exists in the allegations levelled against the person concerned and more particularly, the petitioner herein. In the absence of ingredients as specified in section 123(5), one would be miles away from the precincts of section 133 of 1951 Act.”

Accordingly it allowed the petition.

Appearance: Advocate Shivraj S Balloli for Petitioner.

Additional SPP B N Jagadeesh for Respondent.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 181

Case Title: Shashikala Jolle And State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1560 OF 2024.

Click Here To Read/Download Order