Difference between revisions of "Personation at elections"

From Advocatespedia, ASSN: 132666
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "== Indian Penal Code == === Section-171.D === 171d. Personation at elections.— •''' Whoever at an election applies for a voting paper or votes in the name of any other per...")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== Indian Penal Code ==
 
== Indian Penal Code ==
 
=== Section-171.D ===
 
=== Section-171.D ===
 +
 +
'''Introduction'''
 
171d. Personation at elections.—
 
171d. Personation at elections.—
 
•''' Whoever at an election applies for a voting paper or votes in the name of any other person, whether living or dead, or in a fictitious name, or who have voted once at such election applies at the same election for a voting paper in his name, and whoever abets, procures or attempts to procure the voting by any person in any such way, commits the offence or personation at an election.''' ''If a person applies for a voting paper or castes the vote in the name of someone else other than himself, whether the other person whose name he used is alive or not, or even the name that had been used is real or was a made-up or someone who had already cast his voted once in the same election applies at the same election for a voting paper in his name, and whoever encourages in this is as much guilty as the person committing a crime also whoever persuade or try to persuade the voting by any person commits the offence of personation at n election.''
 
•''' Whoever at an election applies for a voting paper or votes in the name of any other person, whether living or dead, or in a fictitious name, or who have voted once at such election applies at the same election for a voting paper in his name, and whoever abets, procures or attempts to procure the voting by any person in any such way, commits the offence or personation at an election.''' ''If a person applies for a voting paper or castes the vote in the name of someone else other than himself, whether the other person whose name he used is alive or not, or even the name that had been used is real or was a made-up or someone who had already cast his voted once in the same election applies at the same election for a voting paper in his name, and whoever encourages in this is as much guilty as the person committing a crime also whoever persuade or try to persuade the voting by any person commits the offence of personation at n election.''
  
 
'''• Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who has been authorized to vote as proxy for an elector under any law for the time being in force in so far as he votes as a proxy for such elector.''' ''If a person is somehow unable to cast his/her vote for any reason and to the party and another person is appointed under any law for the time being in force can act as a proxy for the elector and he won’t be charged for the offence of personation at elections.''<ref>https://indiankanoon.org/</ref>
 
'''• Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who has been authorized to vote as proxy for an elector under any law for the time being in force in so far as he votes as a proxy for such elector.''' ''If a person is somehow unable to cast his/her vote for any reason and to the party and another person is appointed under any law for the time being in force can act as a proxy for the elector and he won’t be charged for the offence of personation at elections.''<ref>https://indiankanoon.org/</ref>
 +
 +
'''Description'''
  
 
'''Legal punishment for personation at the election is''' ''—whoever commits the offence of personation at elections shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both.''<ref>http://www.aaptaxlaw.com/</ref>
 
'''Legal punishment for personation at the election is''' ''—whoever commits the offence of personation at elections shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both.''<ref>http://www.aaptaxlaw.com/</ref>
Line 14: Line 18:
 
'''R. Sarathkumar vs. the Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu, Public (Election) Department, Secretariat and Ors. 23 March 2018''' “It is to be remembered that Section 171B of the Indian Penal Code speaks of 'Bribery'. Section 171.C. refers to 'Undue influence at Elections'. Section 171D pertains to 'Personation at Elections'. Section 171E relates to 'Punishment for Bribery'. Section 171G concerns with 'False statement in connection with an Election'. Section 171H refers to 'Illegal payments in connection with an Election'. Section 171-I deals with 'Failure to keep election accounts'. Admittedly, a sum of rupees nine lakhs was seized from the Appellant by the Election Officials on 07.5.2016 and the matter was reported to the office of the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Tirunelveli. It is not in dispute that the Fourth Respondent/Electoral Officer, 215, Tiruchendur Legislative Constituency cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchendur had addressed a communication dated 24.2.2017 to the Sixth Respondent/Sub-Treasury Officer, Tiruchendur to keep the seized sum of rupees nine lakhs at the Sub-Treasury and also requested to furnish an acknowledgement after receipt of the amount in this regards”<ref>https://www.manupatrafast.com</ref>
 
'''R. Sarathkumar vs. the Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu, Public (Election) Department, Secretariat and Ors. 23 March 2018''' “It is to be remembered that Section 171B of the Indian Penal Code speaks of 'Bribery'. Section 171.C. refers to 'Undue influence at Elections'. Section 171D pertains to 'Personation at Elections'. Section 171E relates to 'Punishment for Bribery'. Section 171G concerns with 'False statement in connection with an Election'. Section 171H refers to 'Illegal payments in connection with an Election'. Section 171-I deals with 'Failure to keep election accounts'. Admittedly, a sum of rupees nine lakhs was seized from the Appellant by the Election Officials on 07.5.2016 and the matter was reported to the office of the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Tirunelveli. It is not in dispute that the Fourth Respondent/Electoral Officer, 215, Tiruchendur Legislative Constituency cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchendur had addressed a communication dated 24.2.2017 to the Sixth Respondent/Sub-Treasury Officer, Tiruchendur to keep the seized sum of rupees nine lakhs at the Sub-Treasury and also requested to furnish an acknowledgement after receipt of the amount in this regards”<ref>https://www.manupatrafast.com</ref>
 
**reference**
 
**reference**
 +
 +
'''CONCLUSION'''
 +
 +
The conclusion emerges that free and fair election are the foundation of a democratic form of Government. The democratic set up of the government may be threatened if elections are not held in a free and fair manner. To ensure this purity of electoral process, it becomes essential that the law should extend full protection to the electorates against any fear, injury, misrepresentation, fraud and other undesirable practices which may be indulged in by or on behalf of candidates at an election. In order to protect the voters as well as the rival candidates against such intimidiation or malpractices, law has declared certain activities as corrupt practices. To ensure purity of electoral process as well as the implementation of the law and the rules relating to elections, the Constitution of India has by virtue of the provisions contained in Article 324 entrusted this task to an independent authority known as the Election Commission. It may not be out of place to mention here that in tho prc-independence era, the Government of India Act 1919 was the first legislation and the rules framed thereunder declared corrupt practices as a ground to set aside election of a returned candidate if he was found guilty, personally or through any [person of committing corrupt practices in the election.

Revision as of 15:41, 1 July 2020

Indian Penal Code

Section-171.D

Introduction 171d. Personation at elections.— • Whoever at an election applies for a voting paper or votes in the name of any other person, whether living or dead, or in a fictitious name, or who have voted once at such election applies at the same election for a voting paper in his name, and whoever abets, procures or attempts to procure the voting by any person in any such way, commits the offence or personation at an election. If a person applies for a voting paper or castes the vote in the name of someone else other than himself, whether the other person whose name he used is alive or not, or even the name that had been used is real or was a made-up or someone who had already cast his voted once in the same election applies at the same election for a voting paper in his name, and whoever encourages in this is as much guilty as the person committing a crime also whoever persuade or try to persuade the voting by any person commits the offence of personation at n election.

• Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who has been authorized to vote as proxy for an elector under any law for the time being in force in so far as he votes as a proxy for such elector. If a person is somehow unable to cast his/her vote for any reason and to the party and another person is appointed under any law for the time being in force can act as a proxy for the elector and he won’t be charged for the offence of personation at elections.[1]

Description

Legal punishment for personation at the election is —whoever commits the offence of personation at elections shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both.[2]

Brahma Nand Misra vs Emperor on 11 August 1939 “This is an application in revision by one Brahmanand Misra from an order passed against him under Section 514, Criminal P.C., forfeiting a portion of a bond executed by him in the following circumstances: The applicant was one of several candidates for a seat on the Cawnpore Municipal Board at an election held in December 1936. A man named Ganga Kishan acted for him as well as for another candidate as an identifier of the voters who came to the polling station and asked for ballot papers. It appears that a man accompanied by Ganga Kishan came to the polling station and called for a ballot paper in the name of one Madan Kahar. He was identified in the ordinary course by Ganga Kishan, but his effort to obtain a ballot paper did not succeed because an objection was taken on behalf of another candidate to the effect that the man was falsely personating another voter whose name was entered in the list. The objection was upheld by the Presiding Officer who happened to be a Magistrate of the First Class named Mr Niaz Mohammad. The Magistrate put Ganga Kishan under arrest apparently for having committed an offence under Section 171-D, I.P.C., but released him 3oon afterwards on the present applicant giving him the undertaking to produce Ganga Kishan if necessary for a trial later on. The undertaking was scribed by the Magistrate himself in the following terms:”

Rakesh Kumar & Ors. vs State on 27 August 2009 “The petitioner further submits that the 1st respondent had filed a complaint with the Election Commission of India and also by the Communist party (Marxist, Cuddalore). Its District Secretary also complained with the Election Commissioner. Similar complaints were filed before the Electoral Officer and before the Chief Election Commissioner of India on 22.10.1999. The petitioner further contends that the Election Commission of India had called for a report from the Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu and to take disciplinary and criminal action against the Presiding Officer of the said booth. The District Collector had also initiated disciplinary action against the Presiding Officer. However, no order has been passed by the Election Commissioner. The second respondent has without any due authority received the ballot paper from the Presiding Officer and had put the said ballot paper in the ballot box, which is not authorized under the law. Without any due authority, he had interfered with the ballot box and he had fraudulently committed the said illegal Act wilfully and the Presiding Officer of the polling booth had also abetted the same resulting in irregularities. The second respondent was therefore guilty of electoral offences under Section 136 (d) (e) (f) (g) of the Representation of the People Act and is liable to be punished under Section 136 (2) (b) of the Act. He has also committed offences under Section 171 (c) (d) of the Indian Penal Code and punishable under Section 171 (f).”

R. Sarathkumar vs. the Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu, Public (Election) Department, Secretariat and Ors. 23 March 2018 “It is to be remembered that Section 171B of the Indian Penal Code speaks of 'Bribery'. Section 171.C. refers to 'Undue influence at Elections'. Section 171D pertains to 'Personation at Elections'. Section 171E relates to 'Punishment for Bribery'. Section 171G concerns with 'False statement in connection with an Election'. Section 171H refers to 'Illegal payments in connection with an Election'. Section 171-I deals with 'Failure to keep election accounts'. Admittedly, a sum of rupees nine lakhs was seized from the Appellant by the Election Officials on 07.5.2016 and the matter was reported to the office of the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Tirunelveli. It is not in dispute that the Fourth Respondent/Electoral Officer, 215, Tiruchendur Legislative Constituency cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchendur had addressed a communication dated 24.2.2017 to the Sixth Respondent/Sub-Treasury Officer, Tiruchendur to keep the seized sum of rupees nine lakhs at the Sub-Treasury and also requested to furnish an acknowledgement after receipt of the amount in this regards”[3]

    • reference**

CONCLUSION

The conclusion emerges that free and fair election are the foundation of a democratic form of Government. The democratic set up of the government may be threatened if elections are not held in a free and fair manner. To ensure this purity of electoral process, it becomes essential that the law should extend full protection to the electorates against any fear, injury, misrepresentation, fraud and other undesirable practices which may be indulged in by or on behalf of candidates at an election. In order to protect the voters as well as the rival candidates against such intimidiation or malpractices, law has declared certain activities as corrupt practices. To ensure purity of electoral process as well as the implementation of the law and the rules relating to elections, the Constitution of India has by virtue of the provisions contained in Article 324 entrusted this task to an independent authority known as the Election Commission. It may not be out of place to mention here that in tho prc-independence era, the Government of India Act 1919 was the first legislation and the rules framed thereunder declared corrupt practices as a ground to set aside election of a returned candidate if he was found guilty, personally or through any [person of committing corrupt practices in the election.