HARSHAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the 4th and 6th accused in Crime No.216 of 1998 of Parippally Police Station, later investigated by the CBCID, Kollam in Crime No.226/CR/98 and C.P.No.88 of 2005 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravoor for offences punishable under Secs.143, 124A and 153A r/w Sec.149 of the Penal Code (for short, "the Code") and Sec.12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act (for short, "the Act"). Case is that on 24.09.1998 at about 3.30a.m the Sub Inspector, Parippally and party while on patrol duty found petitioners and others engaged in affixing posters on walls which contained allegations "Release Maudani immediately", "Thackerey is spitting poison", "Our Jurisprudence is commendable!", "Thackerey is Butcher of Mumbai" and "Thackerey should be sent to jail". The CBCID, Kollam after investigation filed final report against petitioner and others for offences above stated. Prayer in this petition is to quash Annexure-A2, final report in the said crime and (proceedings in C.P.No.88 of 2005 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravoor). Learned counsel submitted that no offence as alleged is made out even on the allegations made by the respondent. It is also pointed out that the case against accused Nos.1 and 3 was quashed by this court as per order dated September 17, 2010 in Crl.M.C.No.1452 of 2006. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also.

(2.) MATERIALS on record reveal that at the relevant time petitioner and others were engaged in pasting posters on the wall which carried slogans which I have referred to above. Question is whether offences attributed to the petitioners are made out. So far as the offence under Sec.124A of the Code is concerned, it involves bringing or attempting to bring into hatred, contempt or exciting or attempting to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law. The decisions in Balwant Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1995 SC 1785) and Bilalahamed Kaloo Vs. State of A.P (1997(7) SCC 431) held that a charge under Sec.124A of the Code can be sustained only if anything is done against the Government by bringing or attempting to bring hatred, contempt or exiting or attempting to excite disaffection towards such Government by any mode. Going by the final report, I do not find anything attributed to the petitioners as coming within the scope of Sec.124A of the Code.

(3.) IT is not a case of prosecution alleging that petitioners published the posters in question. IT is alleged that they were trying to paste the posters on the walls which of course was foiled by the Sub Inspector and party. Hence Sec.12 of the Act is not attracted. Annexure-3, order shows that the prosecution against accused Nos.1 and 3 was quashed. IT is not shown that the State has challenged the said order. There is no reason why the same relief should not be granted to petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. Annexure-2, final report in Crime No.216 of 1998 of Parippally Police Station (Crime No.226/CR/98 of CBCID, Kollam), cognizance taken thereon and proceedings in C.P.No.88 of 2005 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravoor against petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6 are quashed.