Allahabad High Court

3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that in year 1998, the applicant was appointed as Food Safety Officer and he was kept on working to the best of the satisfaction of his Superiors and he never indulged in any kind of criminal activity. He submitted that vide order dated 28.08.2022, he has been entrusted with duty, in the General Assembly Elections of 2022 and was particularly assigned duties to look after the arrangements of stationery, forms, proofreading, printing, distribution and prepare the bags and their distribution as to make arrangements for receiving of unused left materials.

4. He argued that the applicant proceeded for extraordinary leave from

08.11.2021 to 05.01.2022, which was sanctioned by the competent authority. Subsequently, the applicant joined on 07.01.2022 in District Hamirpur, thereafter, he was on casual leave from 10.01.2022 to 12.01.2022. He added that on 09.01.2022, the applicant sent an application via email to the 2 A482 No. 7017 of 2025 designated officer of the department in District Hamirpur enclosing therewith the medical prescription issued by the District Hospital, Barabanki which was rejected by the opposite party no. 3, who then passed the order on

28.12.2021, stating that no one will go on leave, unless the leave is sanctioned by him. He submitted that the applicant joined on 14.01.2022, after the leave application was rejected and he continued with his duties in District Hamirpur and participated in all the meetings convened by the District Magistrate for election purposes and has also marked his attendance sheet.

5. Further submitted that on 29.01.2022, the District Magistrate wrote a letter to the Commissioner, Food Safety and Drug Administration, while mentioning that the applicant was absent from election duty and as such departmental proceedings be initiated against him, but on place of initiating the departmental proceedings, the present first information report has been lodged, bearing case crime no. 022 of 2022 under section 134(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951(hereinafter, referred to as Act 1951), whereafter, the matter was investigated and chargesheet was filed and the Magistrate has also taken cognizance, erroneously under section 134(1)(2)(3) of the Act 1951.

6. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that section 134(3) speaks about certain categories of officers/officials who can be punished, any omission or act, in breach of his official duty. He added that the kind of work allocated to the applicant is evident that he does not come under the purview of the officers/officials as is prescribed under section 134(3) of the act 1951.

7. For ready reference, section 134(1)(2)(3) are reproduced hereinunder:- "134. Breaches of official duty in connection with elections.— (1)If any person to whom this section applies is without reasonable cause guilty of any act or omission in breach of his official duty, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. (1A)An offence punishable under sub-section (1) shall be cognizable. (2)No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against any such person for damages in respect of any such act or omission as aforesaid. (3)The persons to whom this section applies are the 2 3district election officers, 3 A482 No. 7017 of 2025 returning officers, assistant returning officers, presiding officers, polling officers and any other person appointed to perform any duty in connection with 4 the receipt of nominations or withdrawal of candidatures, or the recording or counting of votes at an election; and the expression "official duty" shall for the purposes of this section be construed accordingly, but shall not include duties imposed otherwise than by or under this Act."

8. Adding his arguments, he submits that the Investigating Officer, without considering the fact the applicant is not covered under officers/officials prescribed under section 134(3), has filed the chargesheet and the learned Magistrate while ignoring the aforesaid provisions, proceeded in the matter and has also taken cognizance.

9. Concluding his arguments, he submits that the chargesheet as well as the cognizance taken and process issued by the trial court is apparently erroneous and is in contravention of the provisions prescribed under section 134(1)(2)(3), of the act 1951, therefore, submission is that the whole criminal proceedings vitiates in the eyes of the law as the same is against the provision of law, thus, the same may be quashed.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid, but he could not refute the contention of counsel for the applicant that the applicant do not come under the purview of the officer/officials mentioned/prescribed under the provision of section 134(3) of Act 1951.

11. Considering the aforesaid submissions and legal provisions, it is apparent that section 134(3) prescribes the otherwise officers/officials than the duty prescribed to the present applicant during course of the election of State Assembly in the year 2022. The duty chart which is assigned by order

28.08.2022, is apparent that the applicant has been assigned the duty of arrangements of forms, stationery, proofreading and printing etc which is excluded in the provisions itself.

12. In this view, the matter requires consideration.

13. Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.

14. Steps be taken within a week.

15. If steps are taken, office shall proceed accordingly. 4 A482 No. 7017 of 2025

16. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 27.10.2025.

17. In the meantime, opposite parties may file their counter affidavit.

18. Till the next date of listing, the criminal proceedings of Case Crime No. 022 of 2022 u/s 134(1) of the People Representation Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar District Hamirpur, shall remain stayed, so far as the present applicant is concerned. September 16, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that in year 1998, the applicant was appointed as Food Safety Officer and he was kept on working to the best of the satisfaction of his Superiors and he never indulged in any kind of criminal activity. He submitted that vide order dated 28.08.2022, he has been entrusted with duty, in the General Assembly Elections of 2022 and was particularly assigned duties to look after the arrangements of stationery, forms, proofreading, printing, distribution and prepare the bags and their distribution as to make arrangements for receiving of unused left materials.

4. He argued that the applicant proceeded for extraordinary leave from

08.11.2021 to 05.01.2022, which was sanctioned by the competent authority. Subsequently, the applicant joined on 07.01.2022 in District Hamirpur, thereafter, he was on casual leave from 10.01.2022 to 12.01.2022. He added that on 09.01.2022, the applicant sent an application via email to the 2 A482 No. 7017 of 2025 designated officer of the department in District Hamirpur enclosing therewith the medical prescription issued by the District Hospital, Barabanki which was rejected by the opposite party no. 3, who then passed the order on

28.12.2021, stating that no one will go on leave, unless the leave is sanctioned by him. He submitted that the applicant joined on 14.01.2022, after the leave application was rejected and he continued with his duties in District Hamirpur and participated in all the meetings convened by the District Magistrate for election purposes and has also marked his attendance sheet.

5. Further submitted that on 29.01.2022, the District Magistrate wrote a letter to the Commissioner, Food Safety and Drug Administration, while mentioning that the applicant was absent from election duty and as such departmental proceedings be initiated against him, but on place of initiating the departmental proceedings, the present first information report has been lodged, bearing case crime no. 022 of 2022 under section 134(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951(hereinafter, referred to as Act 1951), whereafter, the matter was investigated and chargesheet was filed and the Magistrate has also taken cognizance, erroneously under section 134(1)(2)(3) of the Act 1951.

6. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that section 134(3) speaks about certain categories of officers/officials who can be punished, any omission or act, in breach of his official duty. He added that the kind of work allocated to the applicant is evident that he does not come under the purview of the officers/officials as is prescribed under section 134(3) of the act 1951.

7. For ready reference, section 134(1)(2)(3) are reproduced hereinunder:- "134. Breaches of official duty in connection with elections.— (1)If any person to whom this section applies is without reasonable cause guilty of any act or omission in breach of his official duty, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. (1A)An offence punishable under sub-section (1) shall be cognizable. (2)No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against any such person for damages in respect of any such act or omission as aforesaid. (3)The persons to whom this section applies are the 2 3district election officers, 3 A482 No. 7017 of 2025 returning officers, assistant returning officers, presiding officers, polling officers and any other person appointed to perform any duty in connection with 4 the receipt of nominations or withdrawal of candidatures, or the recording or counting of votes at an election; and the expression "official duty" shall for the purposes of this section be construed accordingly, but shall not include duties imposed otherwise than by or under this Act."

8. Adding his arguments, he submits that the Investigating Officer, without considering the fact the applicant is not covered under officers/officials prescribed under section 134(3), has filed the chargesheet and the learned Magistrate while ignoring the aforesaid provisions, proceeded in the matter and has also taken cognizance.

9. Concluding his arguments, he submits that the chargesheet as well as the cognizance taken and process issued by the trial court is apparently erroneous and is in contravention of the provisions prescribed under section 134(1)(2)(3), of the act 1951, therefore, submission is that the whole criminal proceedings vitiates in the eyes of the law as the same is against the provision of law, thus, the same may be quashed.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid, but he could not refute the contention of counsel for the applicant that the applicant do not come under the purview of the officer/officials mentioned/prescribed under the provision of section 134(3) of Act 1951.

11. Considering the aforesaid submissions and legal provisions, it is apparent that section 134(3) prescribes the otherwise officers/officials than the duty prescribed to the present applicant during course of the election of State Assembly in the year 2022. The duty chart which is assigned by order

28.08.2022, is apparent that the applicant has been assigned the duty of arrangements of forms, stationery, proofreading and printing etc which is excluded in the provisions itself.

12. In this view, the matter requires consideration.

13. Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.

14. Steps be taken within a week.

15. If steps are taken, office shall proceed accordingly. 4 A482 No. 7017 of 2025

16. List/put up this matter in the week commencing 27.10.2025.

17. In the meantime, opposite parties may file their counter affidavit.

18. Till the next date of listing, the criminal proceedings of Case Crime No. 022 of 2022 u/s 134(1) of the People Representation Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar District Hamirpur, shall remain stayed, so far as the present applicant is concerned. September 16, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.)