Elections are democracy’s lifeblood, says Madras High Court but quashes bribery case over lack of evidence

“Elections are the lifeblood of constitutional democracy. Any attempt to pollute the electoral stream by bribery must be dealt with sternly. At the same time, criminal prosecution must rest upon legally cognizable allegations and admissible material. The majesty of criminal law lies not merely in punishing the guilty, but equally in protecting a citizen from being made to undergo the ordeal of trial when the very ingredients of the alleged offence are absent,” the court said on June 1.

Justice L Victoria Gowri said that the prosecution has failed to disclose the essential statutory nexus between the alleged money and the exercise of electoral right in the election. (File Image)

No legally sustainable material

• The alleged payment to police personnel, even if accepted for the sake of argument, does not automatically satisfy the requirement of electoral bribery unless the prosecution shows that such payment was made as gratification for voting, refraining from voting, or exercising electoral franchise in a particular manner.
• In the case on hand, the prosecution has failed to disclose the essential statutory nexus between the alleged money and the exercise of electoral right.
• In such circumstances, permitting the prosecution to continue against the petitioner would serve no legitimate purpose.
• The criminal law cannot be set in motion on vague allegations bereft of statutory ingredients.
• Electoral offences are serious in nature; but seriousness of the subject cannot dilute the requirement that the prosecution must satisfy the essential ingredients of the penal provision invoked.
• In the present case, the final report does not disclose the foundational requirements of Section 171(B) IPC.
• Consequently, the prosecution under Section 171(E) IPC against the petitioner is unsustainable.
• Section 171(E) prescribes punishment for bribery and Section 171(B) defines the ingredients of bribery.
• The final report is conspicuously silent on this crucial aspect.
• There is no legally sustainable material to show that the alleged amount was distributed to induce the exercise of electoral right.
• The bridge between the alleged money and the alleged electoral inducement is completely missing.
• The prosecution further appears to rely substantially on the statement or confession of the co-accused.

• It is well settled that the confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence against another accused.
• In the absence of independent material connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence, such a statement cannot form the sole foundation for prosecution.
• The inherent power of this court is not to be exercised as a matter of routine.
• However, where the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offence alleged, this court would be failing in its duty if it permits a criminal prosecution to continue.
• Even assuming the prosecution case to be true, the final report does not contain any specific material to show that the alleged payment was made to any elector as a motive or reward for exercising his electoral right.
• The prosecution appears to have proceeded on the assumption that the seizure of money during the election period, by itself, is sufficient to attract Section 171(E) IPC. Such an approach is legally impermissible.

Allegations traced back to 2021 election period

The case stemmed from an investigation launched during the 2021 Assembly election campaign after authorities received information that money was being distributed in Tiruchirappalli to influence voters.

According to the prosecution, a flying squad constituted by election authorities conducted searches and allegedly found cash that was suspected to be intended for distribution.

Investigators claimed Bharathi, a political party office-bearer, had mobilised funds and arranged for Rs 2,000 to be paid to police personnel in Tiruchirappalli city.

The prosecution alleged that Rs 46,000 was distributed to 23 personnel attached to the Government Hospital Police Station on March 24, 2021, while another Rs 24,000 was allegedly paid to 12 personnel attached to the Thillai Nagar Police Station during the elections.

Based on the investigation, a final report was filed, and cognisance was taken against two accused, including Bharathi.

Petitioner challenged basis of prosecution

Appearing for the petitioner, counsel argued that the allegations, even if accepted in full, did not disclose the offence of electoral bribery under Sections 171(B) and 171(E) of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner contended that the prosecution had failed to identify a single voter who was allegedly bribed.

There was no statement from any voter claiming that money had been offered in exchange for a vote, nor was there any material showing that the recipients were induced to support a particular candidate or political party.

The defence also argued that the prosecution relied heavily on the alleged confession of a co-accused and that such a statement could not be treated as substantive evidence against another accused.

Court examines ingredients of electoral bribery

After examining the statutory provisions, the high court observed that Section 171(E), which prescribes punishment for bribery, cannot be applied in isolation. Before invoking the penal provision, the prosecution must first establish the ingredients of bribery as defined under Section 171(B).

The court explained that the offence requires proof that gratification was given, offered or promised in connection with the exercise of an electoral right and that the payment was intended to induce a person to vote, refrain from voting, or exercise the franchise in a particular manner.

Justice Gowri said that every seizure of money during an election period does not automatically amount to an electoral offence in the elections.

“The prosecution must show that the money was used, offered or intended to be used as gratification to influence an elector in the exercise of his electoral right,” the court said.

‘Suspicion cannot Substitute Statutory Ingredients’

Analysing the final report, the court found significant gaps in the prosecution’s case. The charge sheet did not disclose the name of any voter who was allegedly bribed.

There was no statement from any voter, no evidence identifying a candidate or party for whose benefit votes were allegedly sought, and no material demonstrating that the police personnel who allegedly received money were approached in their capacity as voters.

The court also noted that there was no legally admissible evidence showing that the petitioner personally offered or promised gratification to any elector.

“The prosecution appears to have proceeded on the assumption that the seizure of money during the election period, by itself, is sufficient to attract Section 171(E) IPC. Such an approach is legally impermissible,” the court said.

In one of the key findings of the judgment, Justice Gowri said, “Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute the statutory ingredients of the offence.”

Co-accused’s statement not enough

The court further found that investigators appeared to have relied substantially on the statement or confession of the first accused.

Reiterating settled criminal law principles, the court observed that the confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence against another accused and cannot, in the absence of independent incriminating material, become the sole basis for prosecution.

The judgment said allowing criminal proceedings to continue despite the absence of foundational facts would amount to misuse of the legal process.

Court balances electoral integrity, individual rights

While quashing the proceedings, the high court underscored the importance of maintaining the purity of elections but cautioned against prosecuting individuals without legally sustainable evidence.

However, it added that the criminal justice system must also protect citizens from unnecessary trials when the legal requirements of an offence are not met.

“The majesty of criminal law lies not merely in punishing the guilty, but equally in protecting a citizen from being made to undergo the ordeal of trial when the very ingredients of the alleged offence are absent,” the court said.

Proceedings quashed

Concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish any nexus between the alleged payments and the exercise of electoral rights, the court held that continuation of the case would amount to an abuse of process.

Accordingly, the court quashed the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Tiruchirappalli, insofar as Bharathi alias Manivanna Bharathi was concerned, while allowing the criminal original petition filed by him.