IN THE HIGH COUR T OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr. Misc. No.28912 of 2011
Monika Bedi, D/o Prem Kumar Bedi, R/o 1404-B Wingh
Galaxy Hights, Link Road, Near Bangour Nagar Signal (above
ICICI Bank), Goregaon West, Mumbai.
....Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Bihar
-----------
2 15.09.2011 Petitioner has challenged the order dated
03.01.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka in
connection with Belhar P.S. Case No.150 of 2010 whereby
and where under petitioner along with others has been
summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under
Sections 171(H) and 188 of the I.P.C.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that neither petitioner happens to be a candidate nor she
had applied for permission. She only came in support of
the independent candidate Rajkishore Prasad @ Pappu
Yadav. Then submitted that petitioner was not aware with
the fact nor was informed by the administration that the
time allotted for propagating the candidature of Rajkishore
Prasad @ Pappu Yadav was in between 12:30 to 1:00 P.M.
and as that time elapsed, therefore, she was not permitted
to convene and attend the people. So submitted that in
absence of the aforesaid administrative lapse petitioner
cannot be held accountable. It has further been submitted
that none of the Sections where under petitioner has been
summoned is found to be applicable.
2
At the other hand the State opposed.
It is evident from own submission of the
petitioner as well as from the written report that petitioner
had landed at Project Girls High School, Belhar after the
time allotted to the candidate on whose behalf she
addressed a rally. The time slot was allotted to the
candidate on his request for enabling the petitioner to
address the rally. Admittedly, petitioner had addressed the
rally after the allotted time slot; therefore, she had violated
the order. Ignorance of law is no excuse. Therefore, it was
incumbent upon her to have inquired from candidate
whether she was within time slot allotted by the
administration. With regard to application of particular
Section, the cognizance will not command rather it will
ensue on the basis of the charge and so, for the present
petitioner should not have any grievance for having a
particular Section visualizing in the order by which she
has been summoned to face trial.
With the aforesaid finding I do not see it a fit case
to entertain the petition and is accordingly dismissed.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)
PN