A Delhi court on Wednesday gave a clean chit in poll affidavit case to veteran singer and BJP MP Hans Raj Hans.
Let us tell you, a case was filed against the singer for allegedly giving ambiguous information in his affidavit filed along with his nomination form for contesting the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Dharmender Singh granted the relief under Section 125A (penalty for filing false affidavit in an election) of the Representation of People Act. Also Read : FIR Registered Against Punjabi Singer Gurdas Maan
Let us tell you, the complaint was filed by Congress official Rajesh Lilothia, who had contested against him during the general elections. He had claimed that the singer did not give the correct information in the election affidavit regarding his educational qualifications, financial status of his wife, income of his dependents and regarding holding of office in National Safai Karamchari Commission.
The complaint had alleged that the BJP functionary had mentioned his educational qualification as Matric, however, he further pursued the studies and passed 'Prep' (equivalent to Class XI) from DAV College, Jalandhar. Also Read : Ranjit Bawa Reacts On Comparison With Ammy Virk In A Viral Post!
But the court later noted that according to a report submitted, he did not pass prep from the college therefore it was clear that the correct information was submitted regarding his educational qualifications in the form. Furthermore, it stated that no document had been filed on record to show that Hans’s wife was in employment or doing any business.
The judge also went on to state that Hans Raj Hans had not mentioned his sons as dependents during filing his nomination form and there was no requirement to mention the assets or income of such a child who was not dependent upon a candidate. Also Read : Zee Studios Announcing 6 New Punjabi Films?
Moreover, Hans had resigned from the post of vice-chairman of National Safai Karamchari Commission in April 2019 according to the report filed by the investigating officer and he had filed his nomination after the resignation. Therefore, the court said that the candidate was not required to mention the office from which he had resigned, and the remuneration which had been received by him in the past.