Smt. Rekha Devi and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

.....a senior and respectable member of the local bar to be an independent poll observer. even the presiding officers of nagercoil and padmanabapuram courts have nominated members of the local bar as independent observers. there is no dispute about the fact that an independent poll observer was nominated by the district court, nagercoil and an independent poll observer was nominated at padmanabapuram. the polls were held on 4.3.2011. even till date the polling officer as well as the independent poll observer from nagercoil had not sent their reports. 43. as stated earlier, the unanimous resolutions of bar associations, to vote for a particular candidate, would fall under three categories viz.:- cases where bar associations were bought out. the voters were not allowed to cast their votes. out of 948 votes, about 920 votes are reportedly polled. but, 920 voters never turned up for voting. the present poll does not manifest the wish of the voters. 53. section 15(2)(a) of the advocates act, 1961, empowers the bar council to make rules, providing for the election of members by secret ballot. 56. rule 18 of the said rules prescribes that voting shall be in person at the polling booth and not by proxy. rule 19 deals with the mode of supply of voting papers. 58. rule 22 (1) indicates the method of voting. 59. rule 23 prescribes the procedure for sealing of ballot boxes after close of poll and the transmission of the ballot boxes to the returning officer. rule 35 deals with election disputes and rules 36 to 38 deal with the constitution and powers of an election tribunal. rule 40 deals with appeals against the orders of the election tribunal, to the bar council of india. there is no provision for the returning officer to order re-poll. a.no.1628 of 2011 (padmanabhapuram bar) despite the above instructions issued by the election commissioner and despite the court orders, if the polling officer/poll observer had permitted some persons to vote without showing any kind of..........kanpur nagar be quashed.2. the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intentions for the purposes of harassment. he pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contentions.3. from the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. all the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this court under sections 482 cr.p.c. at this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the supreme court in cases of r.p. kapur versus state of punjab, air 1960 sc 866, state of haryana versus bhajan lal, 1992 scc (cr) 426, state of bihar versus p.p. sharma, 1992 scc(cr) 192, and lately zandu pharmaceutical works ltd. versus mohd. saraful haqe and another (para 10), 2005 scc (cr.)283. the disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. 4. moreover, the applicants have got a right of discharge under section 239 or 227/228 cr.p.c. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the trial court.5. in the event such an application is filed within one month from today, the trial court is directed to consider and dispose it off within a period of two months from the date of it's filing. the prayer for quashing the proceeding is refused.6. the criminal miscellaneous application is rejected with a direction that the bail prayer of the applicants be considered on the same day after hearing the public prosecutor. with the aforesaid directions, this application is dismissed.