Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda vs State of Gujarat & Anr.

Held: r.7A was introduced requiring the candidate to file an affidavit declaring/disclosing certain information – A perusal thereof makes clear that the candidate/declarant is to give details of the property held by them, their spouse and their dependents, including what is held by them jointly – It does not say, in any manner whatsoever, that the property held solely by the spouse is not to be mentioned therein – The ‘comma’ employed after ‘myself’ is a listing comma simply separating “myself”, “my spouse” – In the sentence, “That I give hereinbelow the details of the assets (immovable, movable, bank balance, etc.) of myself, my spouse and dependents,” the ‘comma’ after myself “myself,” is used merely to separate items in a list – The word “of” applies equally to “myself”, “my spouse” and “dependents”, and, therefore, the sentence is to be read collectively as referring to the assets of all three categories – The ‘comma’ does not create any separate meaning, distinction, or exclusion; it serves only a grammatical and structural function to identify the first item in the series – Appellant had to have disclosed the properties owned by her spouse too. [Paras 8, 9] Gujarat Municipalities Act – Representation of People’s Act, 1951 – ss.125A, 2(d) – Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Amendment Rules 2005 – Penal Code, 1860 – Since the candidate is required to file an affidavit, the controlling provisions would be under the Penal Code:

Held: The error in taking cognizance under the wrong Section is, in fact a curable defect so long as the Court that has taken cognizance has the power to take cognizance of the other Sections also – The question to be determined then is whether the offence as u/s.125A RPA exist in the equal or similar measure under the GMA – A perusal of GMA reveals that although originally false declarations were penalized as per s.9, particularly 9I of that Section and its manifold parts stood omitted sometimes in the year 1990 – In this scenario, since the candidate is required to file an affidavit, then the controlling provisions would be under the Indian Penal Code – Although the private complainant had made a mention of certain provisions under the IPC, the Trial Judge while taking cognizance did so only under the RPA – Appellant contends that this is a jurisdictional error and, therefore, would go the root of the matter and whereas the State contends s.465 CrPC would save the incorrect cognizance taken – View of the State agreed with. [Paras 11-13]