JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code , is directed against the order dated 11th Aug., 88. by which, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karauli, directed that from the allegations made in the challan, it was found that a case under section 379, IPC, was not made out, and that, as the offence was committed by 5 or more than 5 persons, this was prima facie case of dacoity, and dacoity being a scheduled offence, the challan could have been submitted before the concerned Special Judge trying the cases of scheduled offences and he returned the challan for being submitted before the Special Judge concerned. It is against that order of the learned Judicial Magistrate that this petition under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code has been filed. 2. Mr. S K. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners referred to Sections 135 & 136 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, "the Act") and also to the provisions of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and then argued that S. 39 of the Electricity Act, is a deeming section which shows that whoever dishonestly abstracts, consumes or uses any energy shall be deemed to have committed theft within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code. So, if a person commits theft of electricity, then, according to S. 39 of the Electricity Act, which is a deeming section, he commits an offence of theft as envisaged in the Indian Penal Code. But, no such deeming provisions has been made in the Act. While reading out Sections 135 & 136 of the Act, Mr. Gupta argued that no such deeming provision has been inserted in the Act. According to him, whatever offence is committed with regard to election, would be covered under sections 135 & 136 of the Act. His argument was that as there is no deeming clause/section in the Act, and so, there can be no question of committing theft or dacoity by the accused persons in this case, and if any offence, according to the prosecution, has been committed by these persons, that is under the Act, and they can be prosecuted only under the Act. His argument was that as there is no deeming clause/section in the Act, and so, there can be no question of committing theft or dacoity by the accused persons in this case, and if any offence, according to the prosecution, has been committed by these persons, that is under the Act, and they can be prosecuted only under the Act. His argument, therefore, was that the learned Magistrate, while passing the impugned order, has committed error in holding that the accused persons have committed theft, or that they being 3 or more than 5 in number, have committed the offence of dacoity. Mr. Gupta submitted that this conception/observation of the learned Magistrate, is not correct, and he should not have returned the challan for being submitted before the Special Judge concerned, who is trying the scheduled cases in which, dacoity is ore of them. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor in reply to the above argument of Mr. Gupta, submitted that the accused persons had taken away with them the ballot-boxes while they were being carried by the polling officers outside the polling-booth, i.e., from the way. He argued that neither section 135 nor section 136 of the Act specifically mentions as to where a case would be tried when the offence has been committed outside the polling-station or on the road, and, therefore, the order of the learned Magistrate is not an illegal order. He argued that the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused persons, was committed on the road, i.e., outside the polling-station, and, therefore, the case is not covered under the Act. 4. Considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel and also perused sections 135 and 136 of the Act. Section 135 deals with the offence of removing ballot-papers from the polling-stations. If a ballot-paper is removed by any person from the polling-station, then, the offence would be covered under section 135 of the Act. It is specifically mentioned therein that removal of a ballot-paper from the polling-station, is an offence under this section. Now, section 136 is with regard to other offences. In sub-section (1) of section 136 of the Act, 7 other types of offences, have been mentioned, out of which, relevant clause is clause (f), which reads as under : "136. (1) A person shall be guilty of an electoral offence, if at any election, he (a) ........... ........... Now, section 136 is with regard to other offences. In sub-section (1) of section 136 of the Act, 7 other types of offences, have been mentioned, out of which, relevant clause is clause (f), which reads as under : "136. (1) A person shall be guilty of an electoral offence, if at any election, he (a) ........... ........... (b) ........... ........... (c) ........... ........... (d) ........... ........... (e) ........... ........... (f ) without due authority, destroys, takes, opens or otherwise interferes with any ballot-box or ballot-papers then in use for the purposes of the election; or (g) ........... ..........." A bare reading of this section shows that where the offence is committed by a person by taking away ballot-boxes or ballot-papers, he would commit offence under section 136 of the Act, which should be committed outside the polling-station, because, a similar offence committed by any person inside the polling-station, is an offence, under section 135 of the Act. If a person takes away ballot-boxes or ballot-papers not from the polling-stations, but from outside, may be from the road or from any other place, the offence would be covered under section 136 of the Act. If the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor, is taken to be correct, that would mean that S. 136 of the Act has become redundant. If taking away of ballot-boxes or papers from out side the polling-stations is covered by S. 135, then why the legislature has envisaged S. 136 in the Act? Why there are two different sections ? In section 135, it is specifically mentioned that removal of ballot-boxes from inside the polling-stations, would be an offence under this section; hut, if ballot-boxes or ballot-papers are removed outside the polling-stations, that offence would not fall within the ambit it is for that purpose that the legislature has created S. 136 in the Act; and there is no deeming section/clause in this Act. An offence under section 379 or under section 391, is not made out in such cases. The present case is pertaining to election, because, ballot' papers were snatched away. So, this is a case which falls under section 136 of the Act. 5. The learned Magistrate, in my view, could not understand the provisions of law correctly, and he has committed error in returning the challan to the police for submitting it before the Special Judge concerned. 6. So, this is a case which falls under section 136 of the Act. 5. The learned Magistrate, in my view, could not understand the provisions of law correctly, and he has committed error in returning the challan to the police for submitting it before the Special Judge concerned. 6. Hence, the order of the learned Magistrate dated 11th Aug., 88, is set aside, and he is directed to proceed with the challan, in accordance with law.Order accordingly. *******