MK Alagiri moves HC to quash poll complaint

Alleging that the present prosecution is out of political vendetta and malafide, Alagiri submitted in his plea that the alleged occurrence took place in 2009 and admittedly much water has flown under the bridge.

Noting that the impugned prosecution is liable to be set aside on the score of limitation point which is covered by the judgment of a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, he said, “It can be set conveniently that section 127 of IPC is a common law and section 125(a) of the Representation of Peoples Act is a special law governing the issue on hand.”

“It is trait law that an issue is either governed by a common law or special law. Moreover, while the special law alone is to be preferred by the court of law, the infliction of common law and special law in his case, which is squarely covered by special law cannot be sustained,” he said.

He further contended that the offence under section 177 of IPC and 125(a) Representation of People Act 1951 provide the maximum punishment of six months and fine. When that being the position, the complaint should have been lodged before the completion of six months from the date of knowledge of the occurrence. According to the complainant, occurrence came to his knowledge on May 2, 2013. But the present complaint came to be filed only in February 2014. Hence, the complaint came to be filed beyond the six-month period and hence is liable to be quashed.

Also noting that he is now residing in Chennai to get medical advice and is unable to appear before the trial court for all the hearings, he sought the court to dispense with his personal appearance in the case. He also sought the court to call for the records on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai and quash the same.

According to the complainant, Alagiri while contesting in the May 2009 elections deliberately concealed the immovable property which belongs to him in his nomination form before the Election Commission. Such suppression attracts penal consequence under section 177 of IPC and 125(a) of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951, he had contended.