Holding

An error in taking cognizance under an incorrect provision is a curable defect under Section 465 CrPC, and the appellant was required to disclose her spouse's assets under Rule 7A, so the matter must be remanded for fresh cognizance.

Summary

Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda appealed against the High Court's refusal to quash a criminal case initiated for allegedly suppressing her spouse's property in an election affidavit filed for the 2015 municipal councillor election. The trial magistrate had taken cognizance under Section 125A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, issuing summons, which the appellant contested on grounds of jurisdiction, limitation, and misinterpretation of Rule 7A of the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Amendment Rules. The Supreme Court examined the grammatical construction of the affidavit clause, concluding that the comma did not exempt disclosure of the spouse's assets, and that the appellant was required to disclose them. It further held that an error in taking cognizance under an incorrect provision is a curable defect under Section 465 of the CrPC, provided the court has jurisdiction over the correct provision. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter to the magistrate to take cognizance afresh, without expressing any view on the merits of the underlying allegation. The appeal was disposed of.

Issues considered

The applicability of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 to municipal councillor elections versus state legislation.
Whether the omission of the spouse's property in the affidavit violates Rule 7A of the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Amendment Rules, 2005.
Whether the trial magistrate's cognizance under Section 125A RPA is a jurisdictional error that cannot be cured.
Whether Section 465 CrPC can cure the error of taking cognizance under the wrong provision.
The computation of limitation under Sections 468 and 469 CrPC for the alleged offence.

Legislation cited

Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 190, s. 465, s. 468, s. 469
Gujarat Municipalities Acts. 9, s. 9I
Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Amendment Rules 2005s. 7A
Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Rules 1994
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 171G, s. 176, s. 177, s. 192, s. 193, s. 196
Representation of Peoples Act, 1951s. 125A, s. 2(d), s. 33(A)

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Challenge by the appellant to the correctness of the refusal of the High Court to quash the criminal case and the issuance of process by the Magistrate, in connection with the complaint filed against her alleging that in her electoral filing for the position of elections, she did not disclose the true extent of the property owned by herself and her spouse contrary to the rules; propriety of the cognizance order. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.465 – Gujarat Municipalities Act – Gujarat Municipalities

Subjects

Propriety of cognizance orderError in taking cognizance a curable defectRepresentation of Peoples Act 1951Rule 7A Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections) Amendment Rules 2005False affidavit filed in electionFalse declarationAffidavit disclosing details of propertyProperty owned by spouseMunicipal electionsComma interpretationMyself my spouseRemand to magistrate for fresh cognizance

Judgment

[2026] 7 S.C.R. 518 : 2026 INSC 665

Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda
v.
State of Gujarat & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 3095 of 2026)
01 July 2026
[Sanjay Karol* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Challenge by the appellant to the correctness of the refusal of
the High Court to quash the criminal case and the issuance of
process by the Magistrate, in connection with the complaint filed
against her alleging that in her electoral filing for the position of
Councillor in the Municipal elections, she did not disclose the true
extent of the property owned by herself and her spouse contrary
to the rules; propriety of the cognizance order.

Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.465 – Gujarat
Municipalities Act – Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of
Elections) Amendment Rules 2005 – r.7A – Complaint filed
under various provisions of IPC and Representation of People’s
Act, 1951, alleging that the appellant in her electoral filing for
the position of Councillor in the 2015 Municipal elections did
not disclose the true extent of the property owned by herself
and her spouse – Magistrate issued summons u/s.125(A),
Representation of People’s Act – Appellant sought quashing,
rejected by High Court – Challenge to – Plea of the appellant
that the Representation of People’s Act 1951 would not apply to
the election of a Councillor which would instead be governed
by the relevant State legislation:
Held: The error in taking cognizance under the wrong Section is
a curable defect so long as the Court that has taken cognizance
has the power to take cognizance of the other Sections also –
s.465 CrPC would save the incorrect cognizance taken – The
taking of cognizance itself, even if it was taken under a singular
section and that too was erroneous, for it is a well settled principle
of law that cognizance is taken of the offence and not people – If
the issue is that a false affidavit has been filed in the electoral
* Author
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 519

Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat & Anr.

process, that is an offence against society at large and has to be
investigated – Matter remanded to the Magistrate concerned for
taking cognizance afresh and proceed as per law – Representation
of People’s Act, 1951 – s.2(d) – Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct
of Elections) Rules,1994. [Paras 11, 13, 14]

Interpretation of Statutes – Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct
of Elections) Amendment Rules 2005 – r.7A – ‘comma’ –
Function of:
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,
520 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

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]

Case Law Cited
State of Karnataka v. Pastor P. Raju [2006] 4 SCR 269 : (2006) 6
SCC 728; State of W.B. v. Mohd. Khalid [1994] Supp. 6 SCR 16 :
(1995) 1 SCC 684; Kallu Nat Alias Mayank Kumar Nagar v. State of
U.P. and Anr., 2025 INSC 930 : [2025] 8 SCR 611; Pruthvirajsinh
Nodhubha Jadeja v. Jayeshkumar Chhakaddas Shah (2019) 9
SCC 533; Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka [2021] 11
SCR 985 : (2021) 19 SCC 62; Santosh De v. Archna Guha (1994)
2 SCC 420 – referred to.

List of Acts
Representation of Peoples Act 1951; Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973; Gujarat Municipalities Act; Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of
Elections) Rules,1994; Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections)
Amendment Rules 2005; Penal Code, 1860.

List of Keywords
Propriety of cognizance order; Error in taking cognizance a curable
defect; ‘cognizance’ under the Representation of Peoples Act
1951; Rule 7A of Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections)
Amendment Rules 2005; False affidavit filed in election; False
declaration; Affidavit disclosing details of property; Property owned
by spouse; Municipal elections; “comma”; “myself”, “my spouse”;
Matter remanded to Magistrate for taking cognizance afresh.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
3095 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2025 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in CRLMA No. 8676 of 2018
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 521

Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat & Anr.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for the Appellant(s):
Namit Saxena.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Rishi Yadav, Sumant Datt, Jitendra Kumar
Singh, Saurav Kumar, Satya Prakash Narain Tripathi.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Sanjay Karol, J.

Leave Granted.

THE APPEAL AND ITS BACKGROUND
2. Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda, the appellant questions the correctness
of the refusal of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad to quash
Case No.3528 of 2017 and the issuance of process dated 08.11.2017
in Crl.Enquiry 58 of 2017 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gandhidham, in connection with the complaint, filed by one Velji
Namori Maheshwari, before the Deputy District Development Officer,
Establishment Branch, District Panchayat Office, Bhuj-Kutch. In the
said complaint dated 17th February 2016, it has been urged by the
complainant that the appellant had not, in her electoral filing for the
position of Councillor in the 2015 Municipal elections, disclosed
the true extent of the landed property owned by herself and her
spouse, which is contrary to the rules and a misuse of public
trust.
3. It is revealed from record that although some steps were taken
regarding the investigation of the matter, the same was not taken
forward beyond a certain point. As such, the complainant repeated
his allegations in another representation to the very same Authority
on 16th May 2017, before moving a private complaint before the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhidham, who issued
summons therein vide order dated 8th November 2017, leading to
the afore-noticed criminal case. The relevant part of the order reads
as hereinbelow:
522 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“Immovable properties as under are situated in the name
of the husband of the accused no.1 and for showing the
same, certified copies of the sale deeds are produced.

Sr. Survey No. Village Taluka Mark
No.
1. 151 Ratadiya Mundra 6/1
2. 26 Radha Mundra 6/2
3. 241 Gundala Mundra 6/3
4. 266 Paiki-1 Gundala Mundra 6/4

The accused no.1 has not mentioned all these properties
in the affidavit filed before the Election Officer. It appears
that all these properties are standing in the name of
Kishorbhai Dafda, husband of the accused no.1 and 7/12
in that regard has been produced on record.
The accused no.1 has stated (agricultural land) Survey
No.247, Village-Anjar in the name of her husband in the
immovable properties of her husband and house of Plot
No.319, Sector-7, Gandhidham has been mentioned
and except that, above-mentioned any of the immovable
property is not mentioned.
After discussing all the above facts, the accused no.1 of
this case has not stated the information which is required
to be mentioned as per sub-section-2 of Section 33(A) of
the Representation of People’s Act in the affidavit produced
before the Election Commission and hence, there is breach
of Section 33(A) and provision of sentence for that is made
under Section 125(A). As per Section 125(A)(III), if any
candidate will suppress the particulars necessary in the
affidavit, then provision is made to impose sentence up to
six months or fine or both. Keeping in view the said fact,
it appears that prima facie offence as per Section 125(A)
of the said Act has been made out against the accused
no.1 of this case.
In this case, when the accused no.1 had filed affidavit,
no person from amongst the persons present at that time
had raised any objection and hence, it does not appear
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 523

Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat & Anr.

that the Election Officer has shown negligence in his duty
at the relevant time or has committed breach of any rules
and regulations.
Therefore, it does not appear prima facie that any offence
under the said Act is made out against the accused no.2.
At the end of all the above discussions, prima facie offence
is appearing against the accused no.1 and hence, I pass
the following order:
FINAL ORDER
In this case, the present inquiry is partly allowed and order
is passed to register the inquiry in the Criminal Register
and order is passed to issue summons as per Section
125(A) of the Representation of People’s Act against the
accused no.1 Chandrikaben Kishorbhai Dafda on payment
of process fee….”
It is to quash the above, that the appellant went before the High
Court and the same was rejected in terms of the impugned judgment
and order1 dated 22.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge.
4. The reasoning adopted by the High Court inter alia, in not quashing
the case was that the doors of the High Court had been knocked
as soon as the concerned Trial Judge had issued process. It was
further observed that the appellant’s reason for not mentioning some
of the properties in her affidavit on account of the fact that she had
entered into agreements to sell, was fallacious since that in itself
does not transfer title. Still further, it was observed that the complaint
was at a nascent stage and as such it would not be appropriate to
quash the same.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Namit
Saxena, appeared for the appellant and Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, for
the State of Gujarat, and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, appeared for
the complainant.

1 R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING AND SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER NO.8876 OF 2018
524 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

5.1 Mr. Namit Saxena, would submit that (a) the Representation of
Peoples Act 19512 would not be of application to the election of
a Councillor which would instead be governed by the relevant
State legislation; (b) the complaint is barred by limitation in view
of Section 468 Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733; (c) Section
469 CrPC postulates the limitation for an offence to begin
from the date, when the alleged occurrence thereof comes to
the notice of the complainant, and since it is required by the
concerned Rules i.e., the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of
Elections) Amendment Rules 20054 require the dissemination
of the affidavit filed by the candidate, hence, the complainant
was aware of the same, and so, limitation had to be computed
as such; (d) 7(A)(1) of the Gujarat Rules mandates that the
declaration made by the candidate, must disclose whether the
properties are owned by themselves or jointly with their spouse.
The said Rule does not require that those properties solely
owned by the spouse be mentioned therein.
5.2 On behalf of the complainant, it has been submitted, among
other aspects, that (a) the mention of Section 125A RPA would
not vitiate the cognizance taken by the learned Trial Judge,
as the same is a curable defect since it is not at the stage of
framing of charge; (b) the falsity on part of the appellant stands
established with reference to her own special leave petition
and rejoinder; (c) fraud vitiates everything; (d) the appellant’s
conduct of filing a false affidavit before a public authority which
is an offence under the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 192,
193 and 196. These offences have the prescribed punishment
of seven years and so, Section 468 CrPC has no application
on them; and (e) Reference has been made to a letter in
written submissions, issued by the State Election Commission,
which in reference to certain Section of IPC and Articles of the
Constitution of India (171G, 177 and Article 243K and 243ZA,
respectively), wherein some authorizations and directions had
been made. Relevant extract is as below:

2 RPA
3 CrPC
4 Gujarat Rules
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 525

Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat & Anr.

“No.SEC-LB-36(III)-62011-3-Municipal Corporation-C-
State Election Commission, BlockNo.9, 6thfloor, Sardar
Patel Bhavan, Gandhinagar. Date:-28/06/2011
ORDER
Preface
During election to local bodies in the state such as
Panchayats, Municipalities and Municipal Corporations,
a candidate filing nomination paper is required to
furnish details of his/her criminal antecedent, assets
debt along with his/her family members and his / her
educational qualification. This information is required
to be supplied by filling an affidavit sworn on oath on
stamp paper and the same is required to be submitted
to the Returning Officer by the candidateconcerned.

It has been noticed by the State Election Commission
from the experience gained through last several elections
that the candidates in fray do not take this requirement
of furnishing information with due seriousness and with
a sense of responsibility. Several instances come to fore
where candidates have suppressed or furnished wrong or
misleading information stating wrong facts in their affidavits
before the Returning Officer. Returning Officers in charge
receive several complaints in this regard during the process
of election and even after the election. However, they remain
helpless without any further authority to take action in this
regard. This not only encourages dishonest approach and
inclination to conceal the necessary information on part of
the candidates, but also more importantly, in ultimate
analysis works adverse on the purity of elections and
probity of the elected representatives in the minds of voters.
The State Election Commission is concerned about fair and
free conduct of the elections in all spheres, and therefore,
also wants to ensure purity of the election process including
the matter of different kinds of information required to be
furnished by the contesting candidates while filing their
nominations.
526 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Section- 171 G of the Indian Penal Code 1860 provides
that false statement in connection with an election shall
be an offence, where as section 176 read with Section
177 of the Code provides for an offence for omission to
give information to public servant by person legally bound
to give it. Similarly, relevant provisions in the Bombay
Provincial Municipal Corporation Act- 1949 provides for
election offences. City Election Officers and Returning
Officers are public servants and authorized officers for
conducting of elections to local bodies in accordance with
relevant provisions of Acts and rules framed their under.
Hence, the SEC expects and also directs them to take
necessary steps immediately.
Therefore, in exercise of powers of superintendence,
direction and control of conduct of all elections and the
matters relating thereto as vested in the Commission under
Article 243 K read with Article 243 ZA of The Constitution
of India, the Commission hereby authorizes and directs the
Returning Officers in charge of the elections to Municipal
Corporation as under:
1. The State Election Commission hereby authorizes
the Returning Officer concerned in-charge of conduct
of election or bye-election to a Corporation to file
the necessary criminal complaint / FIR in respect
of election offences under the Bombay Provincial
Municipal Corporation Act-1949 as may be required
in the fact and circumstances.
2. It shall be the duty of the Returning Officer to verify,
(a) That various kinds of information required to
be furnished under relevant law and / or rules
by the contesting candidates while submitting
nomination paper, are all furnished,
(b) That all these information are furnished on
affidavit on oath, and
(c) That all these information are furnished within
time and in the manner required.
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 527

Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat & Anr.

3. The Returning Officers are required to examine
to correctness of the information furnished by the
contesting candidates and further that the Returning
Officers may depend upon such reliable source, as
may be possible to have recourse to by them, and
on their own.
4. The Returning Officers are directed to file necessary
complaint under appropriate law before appropriate
authority in respect of the cases where it has come to
the notice that the candidate concerned has supplied
wrong information or has withheld the information
or has supplied misleading information and that
such candidate is for such reason has reason has
committed election related offence under the law
applicable.
5. The Returning Officer shall be responsible to file
necessary FIR/Complaint immediately after primary
inquiry which reports or concludes that candidates
has filed wrong affidavit.
6. The Returning Officer shall inform the Secretary,
State Election Commission about details including the
details of complaints filed by him and shall forward
the copies of such complaints, if any; filed by him.
7. The Returning officer shall inform City Election Officer
& Collector about these details including the details
of complaints filed by him and shall forward to the
City Election Officer & Collector the copies of such
complaints, if any filed by the him.
By an order of the State Election Commission.
Sd/-
(P.S. Shah)
Secretary,
State Election Commission,
Gandhinagar (p.4)
To:
● City Election Officer & Collector (concerned)
528 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

● Parant Officer/Deputy Collector (concerned)
(Through Collector)
● Mamlatdar (concerned) (Through Collector)
● District Development Officer (concerned)
● Dy. Development Officer (concerned) (Through
D.D.O)
● Taluka Development Officer (concerned)
(Through D.D.O)”
(Emphasis supplied)

ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATION
6. At the outset, the relevant provisions of law must be considered.
6.1 Definitions clause of the RPA:
Section 2
(d) “election” means an election to fill a seat or seats
in either House of Parliament or in the House or either
House of the Legislature of a State
Section 277 of the GMA provides for the power to the State
Government to make rules. Under this power, over a period of time,
rules have been promulgated and amended. The current iteration
of the rules is the Gujarat Municipalities (Conduct of Elections)
Rules,1994 as amended in 2005. Rule 7A was introduced thereby
requiring the candidate to file an affidavit declaring/disclosing certain
information. The relevant extract is hereunder:

GUJARAT GOVERNMENT GAZETTE [PART-A]
Part-IX
(To be filled by the candidate)
(I) That I give hereinbelow the details of the assets (immovable,
movable, bank balance etc.) of myself, my spouse and
dependents*
A. Details of movable assets.
(Assets in joint name indicating the extent of joint ownership will
also have to be given)
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 529

Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat & Anr.

Sl. Description Self Spouse(s) Dependent-1 Dependent-2 Dependent-3
No. Name(s) Name Name Etc. Name:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(i) Cash

(ii) Deposit
in Banks,
financial
institutions
and Non
banking
financial
companies

(iii) Bonds,
debentures
and shares in
companies

(iv) Other financial
Instruments
NSS, postal
Savings, LIC,
Policies, etc.

(v) Motor
Vehicles
(details of
make, etc.)

(vi) Jewellery
(give details
of weight and
value)

(vii) Other
assets, such
as values
of claims/
Interests

*Dependent means a persons substantially dependents on the income of the candidate.

Note:- Value of Bonds/shares/debentures as per the prevailing market value in Stock
Exchange in respect of listed companies and as per books in the case of non listed
companies should be given.

B. Details of Immovable assets……..(Note: Properties in joint ownership indicating the
extent of Joint ownership will also have to be indicated)
530 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Sl. Description Self Spouse(s) Dependent-1 Dependent-2 Dependent-3
No. Name(s) Name Name Etc. Name:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(i) Agricultural
land-
Location(s)
Survey
number(s)
Extent (total
measurement)
Current
market value
(ii) Non-
Agricultural
land-Locations
Survey
number(s)
Extent (total
measurement)
Current
market value
(iii) Buildings
(commercial
and
residential)
Locations(s)
Survey/
Number(s)
Extent (total
measurement)
Current
market value
(iv) Houses/
Apartments,
etc.
Locations(s)
Survey/
Number(s)
Extent (total
measurement)
Current
market value
(v) Other parts
(such as
Interest in
property)
(5) I give hereinbelow the details of my liabilities/overdues to public financial institutions
and governments dues.

(Note : Please give separate details for each item
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 531

Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat & Anr.

Sl. Description Name and address Amount
No. of Bank/Financial Outstanding as on
Institution(s)/
Department
(a)(i) Loans from Banks
(ii) Loans from financial institutions
(iii) Governments dues (other than
income-tax and wealth tax) (No
due certificate to be enclosed in
case holding or having held any
public office)
(b)(i) Income Tax including surcharge
(Also indicate the assessment
year upto which Income Tax
return filed. Give also Permanent
Account Number (PAN)
(ii) Wealth Tax (Also indicate the
assessment year upto which
wealth tax return filed)
(iii) Sales Tax (Only in case of
proprietary business
(iv) Property Tax

(6) My educational qualifications are as under:-

(Give details of School and University education)

(Name of School/University and the year in which the course was completed should
also be given

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

I, the deponent above named, do hereby verify and declare that the contents of this
declaration are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, no part of it is false
and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. Verified at________________this
the___________________days of__________________200_____________

DEPONENT
Place: Verified before me

Date: (Signature verifying authority with seal)
By order and in the name of the Governor of Gujarat,
(Sd/-) Illegible
Deputy Secretary to Government

------------------
532 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

8. 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.
9. The appellant, in view of the above, had to have disclosed the
properties owned by her spouse too.
10. We now turn to the next point, i.e., ‘cognizance’ under the RPA.
Regarding “cognizance”, we may take note of observation made by
this Court in the following judgments:
State of Karnataka v. Pastor P. Raju5
10. Several provisions in Chapter XIV of the Code of
Criminal Procedure use the word “cognizance”. The very
first section in the said Chapter viz. Section 190 lays down
how cognizance of offences will be taken by a Magistrate.
However, the word “cognizance” has not been defined in
the Code of Criminal Procedure. The dictionary meaning of
the word “cognizance” is — “judicial hearing of a matter”.
The meaning of the word has been explained by judicial
pronouncements and it has acquired a definite connotation.
The earliest decision of this Court on the point is R.R.
Chari v. State of U.P. [1951 SCC 250 : 1951 SCR 312 :
AIR 1951 SC 207 : 1951 Cri LJ 775] wherein it was held :
(SCR p. 320)

5 (2006) 6 SCC 728
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 533

Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat & Anr.

“… ‘taking cognizance does not involve any
formal action or indeed action of any kind but
occurs as soon as a Magistrate as such applies
his mind to the suspected commission of an
offence’.”
State of W.B. v. Mohd. Khalid6:
“43. …Section 190 of the Code talks of cognizance of
offences by Magistrates. This expression has not been
defined in the Code. In its broad and literal sense, it means
taking notice of an offence. This would include the intention
of initiating judicial proceedings against the offender in
respect of that offence or taking steps to see whether
there is any basis for initiating judicial proceedings or for
other purposes. The word ‘cognizance’ indicates the point
when a Magistrate or a Judge first takes judicial notice
of an offence. It is entirely a different thing from initiation
of proceedings; rather it is the condition precedent to the
initiation of proceedings by the Magistrate or the Judge.
Cognizance is taken of cases and not of persons.
44. Cognizance is defined in Wharton’s Law Lexicon 14th
Edn., at page 209. It reads:
“Cognizance (Judicial), knowledge upon which a
judge is bound to act without having it proved in
evidence: as the public statutes of the realm, the
ancient history of the realm, the order and course
of proceedings in Parliament, the privileges of the
House of Commons, the existence of war with a
foreign State, the several seals of the King, the
Supreme Court and its jurisdiction, and many other
things. A judge is not bound to take cognizance of
current events, however notorious, nor of the law of
other countries.”
It has, thus, reference to the hearing and determination of
the case in connection with an offence. By the impugned
judgment the High Court has quashed the orders of

6 (1995) 1 SCC 684
534 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

sanction and the Designated Court taking cognizance in
the matter.”
See also, the recent judgment of J. B. Pardiwala J. in Kallu Nat
Alias Mayank Kumar Nagar v. State Of U.P. And Anr.7 which also
discussed Khalid (supra) for a detailed exposition on this concept.
11. The well-settled position of law is that 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 [See: Pruthvirajsinh Nodhubha Jadeja v.
Jayeshkumar Chhakaddas Shah8]. The question to be determined
then is whether the offence as under Section 125A RPA exist in the
equal or similar measure under the GMA.
12. A perusal of GMA reveals that although originally false declarations
were penalized as per Section 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, as
shown above, then, the controlling provisions would be under the
Indian Penal Code.
13. It is found that although the private complainant had made a mention
of certain provisions under the IPC, the learned Trial Judge while
taking cognizance did so only under the RPA. As referred to above,
the appellant contends that this is a jurisdictional error and, therefore,
would go the root of the matter and whereas the State contends
Section 465 CrPC would save the incorrect cognizance taken. We
are inclined to agree with the State. For ready reference, the Section
is reproduced as under:
“465- Finding or sentence when reversible by reason of
error, omission or irregularity- 1. Subject to the provisions
hereinbefore contained, on finding sentence or order
passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be
reversed or altered by a Court of appeal, confirmation or
revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity
in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order,
judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in

7 2025 INSC 930
8 (2019) 9 SCC 533
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 535

Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat & Anr.

any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or any
error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution
unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has
in fact been occasioned thereby.
2. In determining whether any error, omission or
irregularity in any proceeding under this Code, or any
error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution
has occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have
regard to the fact whether the objection could and should
have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings.”
The application of this Section has been discussed by a Bench of
three judges in Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka, (2021)
19 SCC 62 while referring to an earlier decision of this Court in
Santosh De v. Archna Guha9, held in an appeal arising out of an
order passed in quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC as under:
“41. Section 465 stipulates that the order passed by a
court of competent jurisdiction shall not be reversed or
altered by a court of appeal on account of an irregularity
of the proceedings before trial or any inquiry. It is settled
law that cognizance is pre-trial or inquiry stage. [Gangula
Ashok v. State of A.P., (2000) 2 SCC 504 : 2000 SCC (Cri)
488; Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 :
(2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86, where a Constitution Bench held that
trial begins after framing of charge] Therefore, irregularity
of a cognizance order is covered by the provision. In order
to determine if the provision applies to pre-trial orders like
an irregular cognizance order or only applies to orders of
conviction or acquittal, it is necessary that we interpret the
provision contextually.
…
44. The overarching purpose of Chapter XXXV CrPC,
as is evident from a reading of Sections 460 to 466, is
to prevent irregularities that do not go to the root of the
case from delaying the proceedings. Sections 462-464
lay down specific irregularities which would not vitiate the

9 (1994) 2 SCC 420
536 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

proceedings. Section 465 on the other hand is a broad
residuary provision that covers all irregularities that are
not covered by the above provisions. This is evident from
the initial words of Section 465, namely, “Subject to the
provisions hereinabove contained”. Therefore, irregular
proceedings that are not covered under Sections 461-464
could be covered under Section 465. It is also evident that
the theme of “failure of justice”, uniformly guides all the
provisions in the chapter. There is no indication in Section
465 and in Sections 462-464 that the provisions only apply
to orders of conviction or acquittal. All the provisions use
the words “finding, sentence or order”. Though one of the
major causes of judicial delay is the delay caused from
the commencement of the trial to its conclusion, there is
no denying that delay is also predominantly caused in the
pre-trial stage. Every interlocutory order is challenged and
is on appeal till the Supreme Court, on grounds of minor
irregularities that do not go to the root of the case. The
object of Chapter XXXV CrPC is not only to prevent the
delay in the conclusion of proceedings after the trial has
commenced or concluded, but also to curb the delay at
the pre-trial stage. It has been recognised by a multitude
of judgments of this Court that the accused often uses
delaying tactics to prolong the proceedings and prevent
the commencement or conclusion of the trial. [A.R.
Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602 : 1988 SCC
(Cri) 372 : AIR 1988 SC 1531]
…
48. The test established for determining if there has been a
failure of justice for the purpose of Section 465 is whether
the irregularity has caused prejudice to the accused.
[Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P., (2009) 12
SCC 546 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 630] No straitjacket formula
can be applied. However, while determining if there was
a failure of justice, the courts could decide with reference
to inter alia the stage of challenge, the seriousness of
the offence charged, and apparent intention to prolong
proceedings. It must be determined if the failure of justice
would override the concern of delay in the conclusion of
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 537

Chandrikaben Kishor Dafda v. State of Gujarat & Anr.

the proceedings and the objective of the provision to curb
the menace of frivolous litigation.”
14. In view of the above, the taking of cognizance itself, even if it was
taken under a singular section and that too was erroneous, for it is
a well settled principle of law that cognizance is taken of the offence
and not people. If the issue is that a false affidavit has been filed
in the electoral process, that is an offence against society at large
and has to be investigated.
The matter is remanded to the Magistrate concerned for taking
cognizance afresh and proceed as per law. It is clarified that we
have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and the
discussion supra is only for the limited purpose of adjudicating the
propriety of the cognizance order as made.
The appeal is disposed of in above terms along with pending
applications if any.

Result of the case: Appeal disposed of.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey