Prime Minister Narendra Modi addresses an election rally in Motihari, Bihar on Tuesday, October 27, 2015. (Press Trust of India photo)
The Gujarat High Court will pronounce on November 5 its verdict on a petition related to alleged election code violation by then BJP's prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi during last year's Lok Sabha elections.
Justice JB Pardiwala, after hearing submissions of petitioner Nishant Verma's lawyer KR Koshti and advocate general Kamal Trivedi, reserved the judgement.
Mr Verma, a member of Aam Aadmi Party, has challenged the ruling of a local court which in May dismissed his plea seeking legal action against Mr Modi for violation of election-related laws during the 2014 Lok Sabha elections.
On April 30 last year, when voting was underway for the 26 Lok Sabha seats in Gujarat, Mr Modi addressed the media immediately after casting his vote at a school in Ranip area of the city and also displayed his party's symbol, the lotus.
The Election Commission ordered a probe, but the city police's crime branch eventually gave a clean chit to Mr Modi.
Mr Verma moved the court but chief judicial magistrate of Ahmedabad rural court dismissed his plea and upheld the crime branch's findings.
Mr Koshti argued in the high court that the police investigation was under an influence because Mr Modi was then the chief minister of Gujarat.
Mr Modi, when he stepped out of polling booth, was aware that entire media was there and his display of party symbol will go as a message to the entire country, Mr Koshti claimed.
The investigating officer didn't inform either the Election Commission or the petitioner about submission of closure report giving a clean chit to Mr Modi, he said.
The high court asked Mr Koshti why a private complaint was filed after the EC had already directed the police to file an FIR. Mr Koshti argued that the police's FIR was faulty.
Advocate general Trivedi opposed the petition and said Mr Verma never appeared before the investigating officer even once, he sought 12 adjournments before the local court but never produced any witnesses from his side.