Corrupt practice and cognisance safeguards limit criminal process where the complaint lacks the required statutory ingredients.

A corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was stated not to create criminal liability against a third party unless the facts independently satisfied a penal provision; Section 125 also required allegations of promotion of enmity or hatred on the specified grounds, which were absent. The complaint was further found not to disclose undue influence or personation under Section 171F IPC. Separately, a Magistrate could not reject a B-report or take cognisance without notice to the complainant, and process against a person outside territorial jurisdiction required compliance with Section 202 CrPC. Electronic material could be looked at at the cognisance stage even without a Section 65B certificate.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on a complaint of a non-cognisable offence, the Station House Officer could seek permission for investigation and whether the informant had to be before the Magistrate; (ii) Whether proceedings under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 could be maintained against a third party and whether such violation attracted criminal prosecution, including under Section 125 of that Act; (iii) Whether the allegations disclosed an offence under Section 171F of the Indian Penal Code; (iv) Whether the Magistrate could reject the B-report and take cognisance without notice to the complainant and whether summons could issue against a person outside territorial jurisdiction without compliance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; and (v) Whether the Magistrate could consider the compact disc at the stage of cognisance without a Section 65B certificate.

Issue (i): Whether, on a complaint of a non-cognisable offence, the Station House Officer could seek permission for investigation and whether the informant had to be before the Magistrate.

Analysis: A non-cognisable case requires the police officer to record the information and refer the informant to the Magistrate. The order granting permission was sustained because the informant was present before the Magistrate, was heard, and the Magistrate independently applied his mind to the requisition and the information. The proviso to Section 200 also protected a public servant complainant from a sworn statement, as the informant was acting in discharge of official duty.

Conclusion: The procedural challenge failed and the order permitting investigation was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether proceedings under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 could be maintained against a third party and whether such violation attracted criminal prosecution, including under Section 125 of that Act.

Analysis: Section 123 concerns corrupt practices and the statutory consequence is election-related relief, such as disqualification or voiding of the result, not criminal prosecution. The provision, as invoked, was treated as directed to the candidate and not as creating a penal liability against a third party. Section 125, by contrast, is a penal provision but requires an allegation of promotion of enmity or hatred between classes on the specified grounds. The complaint did not disclose that essential ingredient.

Conclusion: No criminal prosecution was maintainable on the basis of Section 123(3), and Section 125 was not made out.

Issue (iii): Whether the allegations disclosed an offence under Section 171F of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: Section 171F punishes undue influence or personation. Personation was not alleged. For undue influence, Section 171C requires interference with free exercise of electoral right by threat or inducement of the limited kind specified in the provision. The complaint did not contain facts satisfying those ingredients, and a general appeal in a speech did not amount to undue influence in law.

Conclusion: No offence under Section 171F of the Indian Penal Code was made out.

Issue (iv): Whether the Magistrate could reject the B-report and take cognisance without notice to the complainant and whether summons could issue against a person outside territorial jurisdiction without compliance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: On a final report, the complainant must be notified, and only if the complainant objects can the Magistrate proceed to examine the matter and decide whether to accept or reject the report. The Magistrate cannot suo motu reject the B-report or take cognisance without notice. As the accused resided outside the Magistrate's jurisdiction, issuance of process required the safeguard of Section 202 and an enquiry or equivalent judicial satisfaction before summons could issue.

Conclusion: The rejection of the B-report and the issuance of summons were procedurally unsustainable.

Issue (v): Whether the Magistrate could consider the compact disc at the stage of cognisance without a Section 65B certificate.

Analysis: The strict requirement of a Section 65B certificate governs admissibility at trial. At the stage of considering whether to take cognisance, the Magistrate is not barred from looking at electronic material even if a certificate is absent.

Conclusion: The absence of a Section 65B certificate did not invalidate consideration of the compact disc at the cognisance stage.

Final Conclusion: The criminal case was founded on allegations that did not disclose the necessary ingredients of the invoked penal provisions, and the Magistrate's course in rejecting the B-report and issuing process was procedurally flawed, warranting interference and quashing.

Ratio Decidendi: A corrupt practice under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 does not by itself create criminal liability against a third party, and criminal prosecution can proceed only where the facts satisfy a distinct penal provision; further, a final report cannot be rejected or cognisance taken without following the notice and enquiry safeguards applicable to the complainant.

---