New Delhi [India], February 12 : The Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi has declined cognizance of the charge sheet against AAP leader Somnath Bharti and another accused under the Representation of Peoples Act. The court found insufficient grounds for prosecution, ruling that no offense was established.
An FIR registered at the South Campus police station in May 2024 alleged that accused persons entered inside two polling locations and one associate of Bharti videographed the poll procedure during the Lok Sabha election 2024.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Neha Mittal declined cognizance of charge sheet after considering the material placed on record.
"In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that there does not exist sufficient ground for taking cognizance of the offence punishable under section 132 RP Act. No other offence appears to be made out from the charge-sheet. Accordingly, cognizance in the present case is declined," ACJM ordered on February 11.
A charge-sheet was filed against accused persons namely Anshul and Somnath Bharti for commission of offence punishable under section 132 of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (RP Act).
The present FIR was registered on the basis of two complaints, one given by Savita Kumari, Presiding Officer, Polling Station-12 and another given by Pradeep Kumar, Presiding Officer, Polling Station-14.
In the complaint given by Savita Kumari, it was stated that on 25.05.2024 at around 2.10 p.m., Somnath Bharti, one of the contesting candidates alongwith his supporters entered the polling location by hiding their mobile phones.
One of his associate namely accused Anshul started videography of the poll procedure and another woman started searching the polythene packets of polling agents, the complaint stated.
It further stated that thereafter, they entered polling station-14 and SI Giriraj confiscated all three mobile phones.
In the complaint given by Pradeep Kumar, it was stated that both the accused entered polling station-14 and searched the polythene packet of polling agent Mukesh Kumar. He had also stated that three mobile phones were confiscated from the accused persons.
During investigation, one mobile phone was accessed by the Investigation officer (IO) which contained one video of 09 seconds dated 25.05.2014 time 2.33 pm of outside the polling station.
The seized mobile phones were sent to Forensic Science Lab, which stated that the phones could not be accessed as they were password protected and the facility to unlock the same was not available with the tools present in the laboratory. Thereafter, on completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons.
The court said that a careful perusal of the chargesheet shows that the allegations against the accused persons are that after having been removed from polling station no.12, they entered polling station no.14.
As per Section 132(3) RP Act, offence of misconduct at the polling station is committed if any person who has been so removed from a polling station re-enters the polling station without the permission of the Presiding Officer.
The court said that In the present case, even if all the allegations of prosecution are treated as gospel truth, then also no offence appears to have been made out as it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused persons re-entered either polling station no.12 or 14 after having been removed from there.
The court said Further, the videos relied upon by the prosecution are also not of much significance. The only video that could have retrieved by the investigating agency through FSL is of outside the polling station and thus, fails to establish any criminality on the part of the accused persons. Carrying mobile phone/ videography/photography at the polling station would have been an offence if it would have compromised with the secrecy of casting of votes, the court said.
The court said that the video that has been placed on record by the prosecution is not of the polling station but of the polling premises. None of the EVMs can be seen in the video.
Thus, by making the video, the accused persons cannot be made criminally liable. However, appropriate action including seizure of mobile phone can be taken against them by the Presiding Officer or other authorities as provided under the rules.for taking the mobile phone inside the polling premises.
" With respect to the remaining videos which could not be extracted from the other mobile phone due to password protection, no adverse inference can be raised against the accused persons as they are protected under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and they cannot be coerced to disclose the password," the court observed.
There is no other material on record which can show the commission of any offence either by the accused persons or by someone else, the court held.