Relying on Patna High Court's decision in Kori vs. The State (1952) AIR 1952 Pat 138], Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha of High Court in Nityanand Roy vs. The State of Bihar (2025) delivered the 15-page long judgement dated June 17, 2025 quashing and setting aside order dated April 13, 2022 as passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria in connection with Narpatganj P.S. case of 2018. The judgement reads:"Taking note of the aforesaid factual and legal discussion and on the basis of materials available on record, it can be safely said that the written information, which is the basis of Narpatganj P.S. Case No. 129/2018, prima-facie does not constitute any offence, further, the impugned order of cognizance, which is under challenge, does not appear to speak as to suggest how a prima-facie case is made out under sections 153 of the I.P.C. and 125 of the Representation of People Act against the petitioner. It seems that same was drawn mechanically."
The provision of section 153 reads:“153. Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot—if rioting be committed—if not committed.—Whoever malignantly, or wantonly, by doing anything which is illegal, gives provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting to be committed, shall, if the offence of rioting be committed in consequence of such provocation, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both; and if the offence of rioting be not committed, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both."
Section 125 of the R.P. Act, 1951 reads: 125. Promoting enmity between classes in connection with election.— Any person who in connection with an election under this Act promotes or attempts to promote on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language, feelings of enmity or hatred, between different classes of the citizens of India shall he punishable, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.]
[125A. Penalty for filing false affidavit, etc.—A candidate who himself or through his proposer, with intent to be elected in an election,— (i) fails to furnish information relating to sub-section (1) of section 33A; or
(ii) give false information which he knows or has reason to believe to be false; or
(iii) conceals any information, in his nomination paper delivered under sub-section (1) of section 33 or in his affidavit which is required to be delivered under sub-section (2) of section 33A, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.]”
The case of the prosecution was that while addressing a meeting in the campus of the High School, Narpatganj, Nityanand Roy, the petitioner, who was at that point of time president of Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), Bihar, t and the current Union Minister of State for Home Affairs gave provoking public speech which was in violation of the Model Code of Conduct. It was also alleged that petitioner gave hatred speech against the RJD candidate namely, Md. Sarfaraz Alam to the extent that if Md.Sarfaraz Alam wins the election in that case Araria will become the centre of ISIS. Roy's counsel submitted that ISIS is a militant group and was not connected with any particular religion. He relied on Supreme Court's decision and it's legal ratio in State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335] and Navjot Singh Sidhu vs. State of Bihar reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Pat 6186.
Justice Jha dealt with the meaning of word ‘Malignantly’ and ‘Wantonly’ as incorporated in section 153 of I.P.C. He recalled that in Kahanji (1893) 18 Bom 758, 775, it was held by the court that the word ‘Malignantly’ implies a sort of general malice. ‘Malignantly’ and ‘Maliciously’ both are synonymous to each other. ‘Malice’ is not, as in ordinary speech, implies only an expression of hatred or ill-will to an individual, rather it means an unlawful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse as it was held in Bromage V. Prosser [(1825) 4B & C 247]. The word ‘Malignant’ bear some more values to the extent constituting the act having nature of extreme malevolence or enmity something violently hostile or harmful.
The word ‘Wantonly’ as per 10th Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary implies reckless, heedless, malicious, characterized by extreme recklessness or foolhardiness; recklessly disregardful of the rights or safety of others or of consequences.
The High Court drew on paras 28, 29 & 30 of the Supreme Court's decision in Pepsi Food Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate [(1998) 5 SCC 749] and para 102 of Bhajan Lal case.
No comments:
Post a Comment