SASIDHARAN Vs. CINI K SEBASTIAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the third accused in C.C.No.3456 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Thrissur. He along with the co-accused is charged with having committed the offences under Section 189, 201, 294(b), 353, 500 and 509 IPC and section 66(A) of the Information Technology Act,2000. The first accused was the proprietor of Food Court Caterers at Chalakkudy. In the beginning of 2012 the authorities concerned imposed a penalty on him under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. In the appeal the proceedings to recover the amount was stayed subject to the condition that he shall furnish security for certain amount to the satisfaction of the assessing authority. The first respondent who was working as Intelligence Officer in the Commercial Taxes Section of the Sales Tax Department issued him a notice demanding him to furnish security to her satisfaction as contemplated in the stay order passed by the appellate authority. The first accused sent her Annexure 'R1(a)' letter challenging her authority to make such a demand. Copy of the letter was issued to several officers. The following words appeared in the letter "idiot, chastity, hooks and crooks, naked". The computer print of this letter was taken from the computer of the petitioner. The second accused took copies of the letter from the office of the prosecution witness. The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that most of the offences are non-cognisable and the learned Magistrate committed illegality in taking cognizance of the offences on the police report.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) The offences except one under Section 294(b) and 353 IPC and section 66(A) of Information Technology Act,2000 are non cognisable. So if the facts of the case do not attract any of these three offences the order taking cognizance on police report was illegal.