FADNAVIS TO FACE TRIAL IN AFFIDAVIT CASE
SC REJECTS PLEA SEEKING CANCELLATION OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
MUMBAI: In a setback to former Maharashtra chief minister Devendra Fadnavis, the Supreme Court has rejected his review petition seeking cancellation of criminal proceedings against him for his failure to disclose two pending criminal cases in the election affidavit he filed in the 2014 state assembly elections.
The apex court upheld its October 2019 judgment in which it held that a case had been made out for prosecution of Fadnavis under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act.
“We find no ground to interfere in the review petitions. The same are dismissed,” a three-judge bench of the top court comprising justices Arun Mishra, Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose ruled.
Said Fadnavis, “The petition was dismissed on February 18 following which I appeared in the Nagpur bench of the Mumbai High court on February 20 . The SC order passed in February 18 was uploaded yesterday. The effect of this order is that the case which was decided by the honourable high Court in my favour is again remanded back to lower court .” “The former CM is pursuing this case legally,” said a Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson in Mumbai, Madhav Bhandari.
Bombay high court lawyer Satish Ukey set the case in motion in 2014 when he filed a complaint alleging that Fadnavis failed to disclose details of two criminal cases pending against him in his election affidavit and demanded that he be prosecuted under section 125A of the Act. Section 125A provides for imprisonment of up to six months or fine for concealing information which a candidate is required to furnish under Section 33A of the Act.
The two cases against Fadnavis pertained to alleged cheating and forgery that were filed in 1996 and 1998 respectively.
Section 33A mandates disclosure of information relating to any pending criminal case for which punishment prescribed is imprisonment for two years or more, and in which a charge has been framed.
Fadnavis argued was that no charge had been framed by the trial court in the two cases against him and only cognizance was taken.
The judicial magistrate first class, Nagpur dismissed the complaint by Ukey in September 2015. In a revision petition, the sessions judge, Nagpur remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration. Aggrieved by the same, Fadnavis moved the Bombay high court which allowed his plea and set aside the order of the sessions judge in May 2018.
But Ukey did not give up and approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, in its October 2019 judgment, held that the information required to be furnished under Section 33A includes information relating to criminal cases of which cognizance has been taken and not just cases in which charges have been framed.
The conclusion was arrived at by the apex court based on amendments to Form 26 in 2012 as per which a contesting candidate has to disclose information relating to cases in which cognizance has been taken.