@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.@mdashIn this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. petitioner/accused seeks to quash the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 55 of 2014 on the file of Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Vijayawada. The facts are thus:
(a) Accused is a resident of Vijayawada and a contesting candidate for Member of Parliament, 29 Vijayawada Constituency from Telugu Desam Party (T.D. Party) during the General Elections of Assembly and Parliament held in 2014.
(b) While so, on 16-4-2014 at about 10 hours a procession was taken out by the accused on the occasion of his filing nomination for Member of Parliament of Vijayawada which started from Vinayak Temple, Canal road towards Sub-Collector''s office, Vijayawada. The procession passed through various places of I Town police station area viz. Vinayaka Temple, Geeda Bomma Center, Marwadi Temple Street, Canai Road etc. L.W. 3 - party of the media viewing team followed the procession and L.W. 4 - Inspector of Police, conducted Bandobust duty to maintain law and order. Then it is alleged that during procession, caps, T-shirts, sarees, flags printed with the name and photos of candidate and the party symbol of the back side of the T shirts were distributed to some of the participants in the procession besides butter milk packets and water packets etc. The vehicles i.e. truck auto bearing Nos. AP 16 TA 9168 and AP 16 TC 0804 with flowers also participated in the rally. L.W. 3 got the procession videographed. On keen verification of video clippings, L.W. 4 having found violation of the Model Code of Conduct by the accused submitted a report to L.W. 1 - the Returning Officer with a CD containing video clippings. Thereupon, L.W. 1 issued show cause notice to the accused and the accused submitted his explanation wherein he denied the distribution of yellow caps, T shirts, sarees, printed with names and photos on the back side of T shirts to the participants of the procession. However, his explanation was found not convincing. The printing of photographs of the contesting candidate on the main apparel i.e., T shirts was considered as an offence and of bribery. Thus, the accused violated the Model Code of Conduct Rules in connection with Assembly and Parliament General Elections, 2014. Hence the charge.
2. Denying the allegations, learned counsel for petitioner/accused argued, admitting prosecution charge for argument sake, still apparels like caps, sarees, towels, kanduvas, Kurtas, cross banners, wrist bands and T shirts etc. are only election material and intended to be distributed to the party workers to conduct election propaganda and they are to be worn for electioneering purpose and therefore, such material by no means of imagination can be held as bribery. He further argued that T shirts with the pictures of petitioner/accused coupled with party symbol can be least expected to be received any one as bribe since except the party workers and election agents, others particularly, the public and voters feel shy to wear them in public and so, those T shirts and other material cannot be regarded as bribe to capture the votes from the voters. On this main plank of arguments, learned counsel sought for quashment of proceedings.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor argued that during the course of procession the accused got distributed caps, sarees, flags printed with pictures and photos of candidate and the party symbol on the back side of the T shirts and they also distributed butter milk packets and water packets etc. and such distribution was videographed and therefore, such act of the accused amounts to bribery soliciting votes from the voters. He argued that since the acts of the accused are videographed and prosecution produced the material in the form of evidence, petitioner cannot seek for quashment of proceedings as the trial Court after full fledged trial can only decide whether his acts amount to offering bribery or not. He thus prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. In the light of above rival arguments, the point for determination is:
"Whether there are merits in this petition to allow?"
5. Point: The offence of bribery is explained in Section 161B IPC and the punishment is provided under Section 171-E of IPC Section 171-B reads thus:
"Section 171B - Bribery:
(1) Whoever-
(i) gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right; or
(ii) accepts either for himself or for any other person any gratification as a reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce any other person to exercise any such right;
commits the offence of bribery:
Provided that a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action shall not be an offence under this section,
(2) A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or attempts to procure, a gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification.
(3) A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or as a reward for doing what he has not done, shall be deemed to have accepted the gratification as a reward."
(a) So, as per Section 171-B(1) of IPC, a person if gives gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right can be said to have committed the offence of bribery. The term ''gratification'' has not been defined in the IPC or for that matter in Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hon''ble Apex Court explained the term gratification in
"Para 7: The primary condition for acting on the legal presumption under Section 4(1) of the Act is that the prosecution should have proved that what the accused received was gratification. The word "gratification" is not defined in the Act. Hence it must be understood in its literal meaning. In the Oxford Advanced Learner''s Dictionary of Current English, the word "gratification" is shown to have the meaning "to give pleasure or satisfaction to". The word "gratification" is used in Section 4(1) to denote acceptance of something to the pleasure or satisfaction of the recipient. If the money paid is not for personal satisfaction or pleasure of the recipient it is not gratification in the sense is used in the section."
6(a). From the above, it is clear that the term gratification should be understood in the perspective of the recipient rather than the giver that is to say whatever has been paid by the giver should give pleasure or satisfaction to the recipient. Here, one more thing should be noted. The term gratification is not restricted to pecuniary gratification or gratification estimable in money. It embraces all forms of gratification in the ordinary and simple meaning of term gratification. The scope of the meaning of the word gratification is thus very wide and will cover any return which pleases for some favour done. So in order to hold a person guilty of offering bribe to another person under Section 171-B of IPC, the giver may pay money or kind to the recipient but it must please or satisfy the recipient to exercise any electoral right. It is, in this context, we have to see whether the accused are guilty of the offence of bribery under Section 171-B or not.
(b) Now, the main accusation of the prosecution against the accused is that during the course of procession on 16-4-2014 when the accused was going with a rally on the occasion of his filing nomination for Member of Parliament, Vijayawada, on the way his men distributed caps, T shirts, sarees, flags printed with the name and photos of the candidates and party symbol on the backside of the T shirts. They also distributed butter milk packets and water packets etc. to some of the participants in the procession. Those acts of the accused and his men were videographed by L.W. 3 and submitted to L.W. 4. Now, the core question at this juncture is even accepting the prosecution case to be true, whether distribution of such articles can be regarded as bribery within the fold of Section 171(B) of IPC. The considered view of this Court is that the above material such as caps, T shirts, sarees, flags printed with the name of candidate and party symbol cannot be termed as bribery. Since those articles contain the photo of candidates as well as party symbol etc. and those articles are of less value, the recipients cannot wear them freely unlike other clothes with commercial brands, logos etc. The passersby will taunt the wearers. So, by no stretch of imagination one can say, those articles with pictures and logos will give ratification to the recipients to be wooed so as to term as gratification. I find force in the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that those articles can only be regarded as election material intended for the party workers and election agents as they are bound to wear as part of election propaganda and they cannot be distributed to the voters. In these circumstances, continuation of the proceedings will certainly amounts to abuse of process of law.
In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused in S.T.C. No. 55 of 2014 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada are quashed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
