Guwahati: Despite being ordered to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Kamrup Metro), Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma did not appear before the court.
The CJM court had ordered the CM to appear before it at 10 am in connection with a violation of the Model Code of Conduct during the 2019 Lok Sabha election.
After he as well as his lawyer did not appear till 10:55 am, the court issued an arrest warrant against Himanta Biswa Sarma.
Also Read: Assam: Alleged poacher who escaped police custody found dead in Biswanath
The lawyer, however, appeared before the court on behalf of the Chief Minister after the arrest order was issued.
After reaching Sarma’s lawyer requested for withdrawal of the earlier guidelines citing that the Chief Minister was engaged with the visit of the President of India.
Only then, the court had agreed to withdraw the arrest warrant and asked the CM to appear before the court on March 21.
The summon was issued by the court based on a case filed by the Election Commission.
The Election Commission had filed the case against the Chief Minister based on an allegation by the Assam Pradesh Congress Committee which alleged that the Himanta Biswa Sarma who was a state minister then had violated the model code of conduct.
Himanta Biswa Sarma allegedly gave an interview to a satellite channel then even after the election campaign time was over.
Also Read: Assam: Police seize suspected drugs worth Rs 8 crore in Bokajan
The court stated that based on certain evidence submitted by the complainant, the two accused namely Himanta Biswa Sarma and the news channel owned by M/S Pride Entertainment Pvt Ltd represented by the then Chairman-cum-Managing Director, violated the Model Code of Conduct of Lok Sabha Election by telecasting a Live Interview of Himanta Biswa Sarma.
The court further stated that the allegation or the case of the complainant comes under the purview of section 126(1)(b) of the Representation of People’s Act i.e, as per the complaint petition and the above-mentioned documents submitted by the complainant, the two accused prima facie committed the offences u/s 126(1)(b) of the Representation of People’s Act.