P NEDUMARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought for quashing of the proceedings in S.C.No.13/2003 pending on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Court, Dindigul.

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel Mr.K.Chandru, appearing for the petitioner would submit that the speech of the petitioner made on 11.6.1992 is not an objectionable one and does not constitute an offence under the provisions of S.124A or 153A of I.P.C.; that it is pertinent to note that there is inordinate delay in lodging the first information report; that there is no reasonable explanation for the same; that the petitioner has been gravely prejudiced by the inordinate delay on the part of the respondent; that if the proceedings are allowed to go on, the petitioner will not be able to get the witnesses to testify to the actual text of his speech; that the petitioner has not stated anything which would bring or attempt to bring into hatred or contempt or excite or attempt to excite dissatisfaction towards the Government; that it is well settled that strong comments against the inaction of the Government will not constitute sedition, and in this view the petitioner has not committed any offence punishable under S.124 A of IPC; that the reference to the atrocities against Tamils in Karnataka cannot be construed as being violative of S.153 A of I.P.C.; that a reading of the speech of the petitioner would show that no offence under S.124 A or 153 A of IPC has been made out, and hence, the proceedings has got to be quashed.

(3.) Contrary to the above contentions, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner/accused, who is a strong supporter and sympathiser of the LTTE, on 11.6.1992 between 20.30 and 22.50 hours at Vannampatti delivered a speech before an audience; that it has attempted to excite feelings of disaffection towards the Government, and it is seditious; that the accused attempted the Tamil youths to raise their hands against the other people of India and thus attempted to create and promote the feelings of enmity and ill will between different racial and language group in India and thus excited disaffection towards the Government established by law; that it is clear from the said speech that the petitioner/accused has committed an offence punishable not only under S.124(A) of IPC, but also under S.153(A) of IPC; that the said speech made by the petitioner make out a case; that there are available materials to prove the offence against the petitioner; that in view of the above, the proceedings pending before the lower Court has got to proceeded with, and hence, this petition has to be dismissed.