The Karnataka High Court has nullified the legal actions taken against Legislator Shashikala Jolle, who faced charges under sections 171(E) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, in connection with the 2023 State Assembly elections.

Justice Krishna S. Dixit, presiding over a single judge bench, granted approval to the petition filed by Shashikala Jolle. The judge declared, "The ongoing proceedings in Crime No. 52/2023 of Nipani Town Police Station, currently under CC No. 2990/2023 before the learned JMFC, Nipani, pertaining to offenses under sections 120(1) & 133 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, and also under Section 171(E) of the IPC, 1860, are hereby dismissed. The petitioner is absolved of any involvement in the said case."

Following an investigation, the police filed a chargesheet against Jolle and an individual named Yuvaraj Donawade. It was claimed that Yuvaraj was actively campaigning for Jolle and was discovered in possession of Rs 10,000 in cash, a voters list, handbills bearing the lotus symbol, and featuring the candidate's photographs. Allegations suggested that Yuvaraj was enticing voters through these means.

The petitioner contended that the allegations outlined in the FIR/Charge Sheet fail to demonstrate the commission of any offense and lack the essential elements of the purported offenses. Additionally, the petitioner raised concerns about the order issued by the learned Magistrate, stating that it was cryptic and devoid of any indication of reasoned consideration or application of mind.

The prosecution objected to the plea, arguing that upon reviewing the entirety of the material presented in the chargesheet filed by the police post-investigation, it cannot be concluded that the proceedings are untenable. They asserted that if the petitioner were to face trial, it would not result in any prejudice to her, and it would serve the interests of justice and the public. Furthermore, they suggested that the petitioner could utilize provisions for discharge or similar options available through the learned Magistrate, instead of pursuing this petition.

The bench, citing Section 171(E), highlighted that for an action to be classified as 'bribery,' it necessitates the involvement of at least two individuals. It requires one person to offer or give gratification as a reward for the exercise of electoral rights by another person. Hence, there must be a minimum of two parties involved: one offering or intending to offer a bribe, and the other being the recipient or intended recipient of the bribe.

Following which it held “What emerges from the complaint is that a particular person was carrying the money and that the same has been seized since it was suspected to be used for electoral offences. All that does not amount to the offence of bribery, even if the allegations are taken at their face value, and therefore there is no scope for invoking section 171(E) of IPC, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner.”

Accordingly it allowed the petition.

Appearance: Advocate Shivraj S Balloli for Petitioner.

Additional SPP B N Jagadeesh for Respondent.

Case Title: Shashikala Jolle And State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1560 OF 2024.