Allowed

Venkatesh v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC3 Mar 2011CRL OP/23182/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for affixing posters with slogans against the government. The court held that the content fell under the constitutional protection in the explanation to Section 2(1)(b) as criticism of government policy, rendering the proceedings an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition allowed; proceedings in S.T.C.No.1571 of 2010 quashed; connected maintenance petition closed.

Venkatesh Vs Inspector of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 3-3-2011

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M. AKBAR ALI

¶5

Venkatesh ... Petitioner

¶6

¶7

State rep by Inspector of Police

¶8

Vikravandi Police Station

¶9

Villupuram District

¶10

(Cr.No.298 of 2010) ... Respondent

¶11

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the reliefs as stated therein.

¶12

For petitioner : Mr.R. Sankarasubbu

¶13

For respondent : Mr.Hassan Mohammed Jinnah APP ORDER

¶14

By consent of both sides, the matter has been taken up for final hearing. The petition is filed seeking a direction to call for the records in S.T.C.No.1571 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram and quash the charge sheet.

¶15

The petitioner is charged for an alleged offence under Sec.3(1) of Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act 1959. It is alleged that on 17.7.2007 around 3.00 p.m the petitioner was affixing the posters on a wall in public view containing slogans with provocative words against the Government.

¶16

Aggrieved at taking cognizance of the charge sheet, the petitioner is before this Court to quash the same on the ground that the prosecution is malicious and the petitioner is protected under Art.19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and he has not propagated any offending slogans.

¶17

Mr.R. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the petitioner would draw this court's attention to Sec.3 of the Tamil Nadu Open Places Prevention of Disfigurement Act, 1959. He submitted that the offence will be attracted only if any 'objectionable advertisement' is made in any place open to public view. The learned counsel submitted that freedom of speech and expression is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the fundamental right guaranteed under Art.19(1)(a) of the

¶18

Constitution of India and relied on a decision reported in AIR 1959 Allahabad 101 (Kedar Nath Singh vs Sate of Bihar) . He also relied on a decision reported in 2002 (2) ACT 343 (V. Narayana Reddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh)

¶19

The respondent filed counter, in which, it is stated that on 17.7.2010 the petitioner affixed poster without any permission or consent condemning the Tamil Nadu Government and the poster affixed by the petitioner did not contain any details as to where it was printed.

¶20

It is also stated that based on the examination of the witnesses and also on the opinion of the Additional Public Prosecutor, charge sheet was filed for the offence under Sec.4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Difigurement) Act 1952 and the same was taken on file in STC No.1571 of 2010.

¶21

It is further stated that if any person affixes to or inscribes or exhibits on any place open to public view any advertisement without the written consent of the owner or occupier or person in management of the propery, is liable to be punished under Sec.4 (1) of Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959. It is also stated that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed and the same has been taken on file. At this stage, there is no necessity to quash the proceedings.

¶22

In support of this contentions, Mr.Hassan Mohammed Jinnah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner has exhibited objectionable advertisements and therefore, liable to be prosecuted and the court need not interfere in this matter.

¶23

Heard and perused the materials available on record.

¶24

Art 19(1)(a) of the Constitution reads as follows:

¶25

(1)All citizens shall have the right :-

¶26

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

¶27

¶28

(d) to move freely throughout the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ territory of India;

¶29

(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and

¶30

(f) omitted

¶31

However, this guarantee is subject to the reasonable restrictions which is indicated in clause (ii) of the Article.

¶32

Sec.2(b) of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfugurement) Act, 1959 defines objectionable advertisements which reads as follows:

¶33

""(b) "Objectionable advertisement" means any advertisement which is likely to;

¶34

(i) incite any person to commit murder, sabotage or any offence involving violence; or

¶35

(ii) seduce any member of any of the armed forces of the Union or of the police forces from his allegiance or his duty or prejudice the recruiting of persons to serve in any such force or prejudice the discipline of any such force or

¶36

(iv) is deliberately intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of the citizens of India by insulting or blaspheming or profaning the religion or the religiious beliefs of that class; or (v) is grossly indecent or is scurrilous or obscene or intended for blackmail;

¶37

(vi) obstructs pedestrian traffic

¶38

However, the explanation would go to show that an advertisement shall not be deemed to be objectionable merely because words or signs visible representations are used,

¶39

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶40

(1) expressing disapprobation or criticism of any law or of any policy or administrative action of the

¶41

Government with a view to obtain its alteration or redress by lawful means;

¶42

(2) criticising any social or religious practices without malicious intention and with; honest view to promote social or religious reform or social justice.

¶43

Sec.3 of the Act reads as follows:

¶44

Penalty for disfigurement by objectionable advertisement:-

¶45

Whoever affixes to, or inscribes or exhibits on, any place open to public view any objectionable advertisement shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both".

¶46

Therefore, in order to constitute an offence under Sec.3 of the Act, it should be alleged that the accused affixed or inscribed or exhibited any objectionable advertisement on any place open to public view.

¶47

2002 (2) ACT 343 (V. Narayana Reddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh) the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had an occasion to deal with a case where a practising advocate and an organising Secretary of an Organisation for protection of democratic rights said to have pasted pamphlets containing objectionable advertisement regarding nuclear test and weapons. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh found that the intention of the organiser is to enlighten the public about the Nuclear disarmament and therefore, the pamphlet cannot be said to be an objectionable advertisement.

¶48

In order to bring an offence under Sec.3 of the Act, the objectionable advertisement must satisfy any one of the conditions found in 2(b) of the Act. The explanations to Sections 2(1) will not come under the objectionable advertisement.

¶49

The objectionable advertisement in the present case is said to be raising a slogan against the ruling party, objecting the institution of false cases and arresting the members of Makkal Jananayaka Ilaignar Kazhagam (People Democratic Youth Forum).

¶50

In my considered view, the intention of the petitioner is to condemn the arrest of the fellow members of the forum and objecting foisting false cases.

¶51

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶52

Freedom of speech and expression is the fundamental right of all citizens. The reasonable restrictions is in relation to public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. Therefore, whatever stated in the alleged poster is not coming under the definition of 1 to 6 of 2(b) of the Act but will come under explanation (1) of 2(b) of the Act.

¶53

Therefore, the pendency of such proceedings is only abuse of process of law which is liable to be quashed accordingly, it is quashed.

¶54

In the result, the criminal original petition is allowed and the proceedings in S.T.C.No.1571 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected MP is closed.

¶55

Sd/-
Deputy Registrar
//true copy//
Sub Asst.Registrar
sr
To
1. Inspector of Police
Vikravandi Police Station
Villupuram District
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai
3. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram.
4. -do- Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram.
1 cc to Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, Advocate, Sr.No.15772
Order in
Crl.O.P.No.23182 of 2010
BS {CO}
TP/15.3.2011.

¶56

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Venkatesh v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatesh v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Kasthuri Vs State Rep by

Thiru.Cyrus Guzdar Vs N.Kumar Kesavan

Manikandan Vs the Deputy Superintendent of

Il Sung Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sivakumar

K.Mani Vs the State Rep by

Baby Vs the Inspector of Police