Maharashtra Deputy CM Devendra Fadnavis Acquitted In 2014 Case For Non-Disclosure Of Criminal Cases In Election Affidavit

Amisha Shrivastava

8 Sep 2023 11:47 AM GMT

  • Maharashtra Deputy CM Devendra Fadnavis Acquitted In 2014 Case For Non-Disclosure Of Criminal Cases In Election Affidavit

    A court in Nagpur has acquitted Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis in a case of non-disclosure of criminal cases in his 2014 election affidavit.Chief Judicial Magistrate Sangram Subhash Jadhav acquitted Fadnavis in a complaint under section 125A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (filing false affidavit) by Nagpur based lawyer Satish Uke.During the proceedings of...

    A court in Nagpur has acquitted Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis in a case of non-disclosure of criminal cases in his 2014 election affidavit.

    Chief Judicial Magistrate Sangram Subhash Jadhav acquitted Fadnavis in a complaint under section 125A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (filing false affidavit) by Nagpur based lawyer Satish Uke.

    During the proceedings of the trial, Fadnavis accepted that he failed to disclose the criminal cases but claimed that it was an oversight on the part of his lawyer who was responsible for filing the affidavit, and not an intentional omission.

    Uke had filed the case against Fadnavis for failure to disclose two criminal cases in his election affidavit submitted for the 2014 Assembly elections, thereby violating Section 33A(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The two cases related to cheating and forgery and were registered against Fadnavis in 1996 and 1998.

    Uke has been booked by the ED is a land grabbing case and is currently in jail.

    Initially, the trial court had ruled against Fadnavis, finding him guilty of non-disclosure in his election affidavit. However, the Bombay High Court overturned this decision.

    Uke approached the Supreme Court, and it was observed that a prima facie case under Section 125A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 was made out against Fadnavis. Thus, the Supreme Court directed the trial court to decide the case again. Fadnavis’ review petition against this judgment was dismissed in 2020, leading to his retrial.

    Next Story