Karunanidhi can be prosecuted for declaring false assets, claims Thiruvarur assembly returning officer

Chennai:

The returning officer of Thiruvarur Assembly constituency has urged the Madras High Court to dismiss the petition of former chief minister and DMK president M Karunanidhi stating that false declaration of assets as per the decision of Supreme Court may not be a ground to reject nomination paper during the elections but certainly a ground for institution of prosecution.

In a counter affidavit which was filed in the High Court challenging the petition of Karunanidhi, the returning officer P Paramasivan said that the petitioner has admitted in his petition that the property referred to in the complaint has not been disclosed by him in the affidavit filed along with nomination papers.

Interestingly, Karunanidhi in his petition has challenged summons issued to him by the Judicial Magistrate of Thiruvarur, taking cognizance of a complaint filed by the Returning Officer alleging that he had not furnished particulars about certain properties at the time of filing his nomination papers for the April 13, 2011 assembly polls. Karunanidhi had submitted that nomination papers can not be rejected even if there was any failure or suppression in disclosure of any asset of a candidate as per the direction of ECI.

He also said that the petition filed by DMK chief appears to be filed on imaginary grounds like --- the returning officer ceases to be a returning officer on completion of election; there is no decision by the election commission of India to prosecute the petitioner; the returning officer was not examined on oath and the complaint is barred by limitation.

“These contentions has absolutely no legal basis and thefore the petition is liable to be dismissed,” he contended.

“The averments in the petition that the returnining officer function ceases to exist after returning the candidate is not legally correct and is specifically denied. The returning officer performs the duties of returning officer as and when election related duties arises and he is also notified as the electoral registration officer,” he said.

“In fact during the hearing of the election petition, the returning officer of the constituency wherever, is required to appear before the court and produce the records. While section 28 A of the Representation of People Act 1950 including Section 13 CC applies during both election and non-election period. In the circumstances, the contention of the petition is totally unsustainable,” he submitted.

He also said that on July 12, 2013, the Election Commission of India directed the chief electoral officer of the state that the returning officer may be advised to file a complaint against Karunanidhi before the appropriate authority as such the complaint was filed before judicial magistrate, Thruvarur.

“Whether a complaint is barred by time or not is a mixed question of law and fact can be gone into only by the concerned magistrate as in the complaint there is a clear averment that the complaint is within time,” Paramasivam submitted.