The Supreme Court has held that a Magistrate’s error in taking cognizance under an incorrect statutory provision does not automatically invalidate criminal proceedings if the court otherwise possesses jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offence.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh remanded the matter to the Magistrate for fresh consideration after finding that cognizance had been taken under an inapplicable provision of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), despite the allegations relating to a municipal election governed by State law.
The case arose from allegations that the councillor had failed to disclose several immovable properties owned by her husband while filing her nomination affidavit for the 2015 municipal elections. A complaint was initially lodged before the district authorities in February 2016, alleging concealment of assets and breach of election disclosure requirements. After administrative action did not progress, the complainant filed a private complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhidham, who issued summons under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for filing a false election affidavit.
Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026
The accused approached the Gujarat High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings, contending that the complaint was legally unsustainable. The High Court, however, declined to interfere, observing that the matter was still at an initial stage and the allegations warranted examination during trial.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act could not apply because the election in question concerned a municipal councillor and not elections to Parliament or a State Legislature. The appellant also contended that the complaint was barred by limitation and that the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules required disclosure only of jointly owned properties, not assets exclusively owned by the spouse.
The complainant, on the other hand, argued that mentioning the wrong statutory provision at the stage of cognizance was merely a curable procedural defect and that filing a false affidavit constituted offences under the Indian Penal Code as well.
Interpreting the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that only jointly owned assets needed disclosure.
The Court closely examined the prescribed affidavit format and held that candidates are required to disclose the assets of themselves, their spouse and their dependents, irrespective of whether the spouse exclusively owns the property. According to the Bench, the comma appearing after the word “myself” merely separates items in a list and does not create any exclusion regarding assets solely owned by the spouse.
The Court therefore concluded that the appellant was under an obligation to disclose properties standing exclusively in the spouse’s name.
The principal issue before the Court concerned the Magistrate’s decision to take cognizance under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act.
The Supreme Court observed that the Representation of the People Act governs elections to Parliament and State Legislatures and not municipal elections. Nevertheless, the Court held that this mistake did not render the entire proceedings void.
Relying on earlier decisions including Pruthvirajsinh Nodhubha Jadeja, Pradeep S. Wodeyar and other precedents, the Bench reiterated that cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender, and an error in referring to an incorrect statutory provision at the cognizance stage is ordinarily a curable irregularity under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, provided no failure of justice has occurred.
The Court noted that although the Gujarat Municipalities Act no longer contains specific penal provisions for false declarations after the omission of earlier provisions, candidates continue to file sworn affidavits under the municipal election rules.
Consequently, if a candidate files a false affidavit, the matter may attract relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code rather than the Representation of the People Act. The Bench also took note of the complainant’s reliance upon provisions relating to false evidence and furnishing false information to public authorities.
Instead of quashing the proceedings altogether, the Supreme Court directed that the matter be remitted to the concerned Magistrate for taking cognizance afresh under the appropriate legal provisions and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.
The Court made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations and that its observations were confined to determining the legality of the cognizance order.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
