SASI THAROOR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Annexure C order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, is challenged in the above petition invoking S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, the 'Code'. Petitioner is a member of Parliament. Annexure A complaint was filed by the second respondent before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, against the petitioner as the accused, to prosecute him for the offence punishable under S. 3 of the Prevention of Insults of National Honour Act, 1971 [for short 'the Act']. The gist of the accusation is that at a time when the petitioner contested the election to the Parliament, participating in a function organised by a Bank at Le Meridian Convention Centre, Ernakulam, on 16.12.2008, while the national anthem was sung, he disrupted the singing of the anthem and instructed all those who attended the programme to sing the national anthem keeping the right hand on the left chest, as followed in singing the national anthem of United States of America by the people of that country. In the meeting, singing of national anthem disrupted by the petitioner commenced afresh, and many followed his instruction. A few did not follow it. Complainant who claims to have attended the meeting did not follow the instruction of the accused. Petitioner had intentionally prevented the singing of national anthem, and, thus, committed the offence under S. 3 of the aforesaid Act, is the case of the complainant. Cognizance of the offence taken on the complaint and process ordered to the petitioner, the case numbered as C.C.No. 1190 of 2009 is on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(2.) After appearance of the petitioner/accused, enquiry under S. 244(1) of the Code proceeded since the offence alleged has to follow the trial of a warrant case. After evidence of the complainant examining him and his witnesses, giving opportunity to the accused to cross-examine them, was over, petitioner moved an application through his counsel under Sections 91 and 245 of the Code read with S. 165 of the Indian Evidence Act. That application was filed to issue summons to a bank official to produce a compact disk, in which, according to him, entire function was recorded through electronic device. Annexure B is copy of that petition. Learned Magistrate dismissed that petition vide Annexure C order holding that at that stage accused cannot seek production of any document to consider whether a charge is to be framed against him or not. That order is challenged in the present petition by the accused.

(3.) I heard learned senior counsel Sri. K. Ramakumar, who appeared for the petitioner, and learned counsel Sri. John K. George for the 2nd respondent/complainant.