Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1039 (AP)

A. Vijaya Kumar v. State Of A. P.

2002-08-27

C.Y.SOMAYAJULU

body2002
C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application to quash the proceedings against A-2, A-11, A-12, A-15 and A-18 in CC. No. 171 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, wanaparthy. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that petitioners, who have business establishments at Wanaparthy, have closed their shops in pursuance of a bandh call given by the CPI (ML) peoples War Group on 28-5-2001 and hence have committed an offence under Section 8 (1) of the Andhra pradesh Public Security Act, 1992 (the act ). 2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that since petitioners are in no way connected with the activities of the CPI (ML) Peoples War Group, and closed down their establishments only with a view to protect and preserve their property and since this Court in Criminal petition No. 4184 of 2001 by the order dated 7-4-2002 quashed the proceedings against some of the accused in the case similarly placed as petitioners, the proceedings against the petitioners also may be quashed. The contention of the learned Additional Public prosecutor is that since the petitioners have closed their shops in obedience of the bandh call given by CPI (ML) Peoples War Group the provisions of Section 8 [l]of the Act apply to the petitioners. . ( 3 ) SECTION 8 (1) of the Act reads:"whoever is a member of an unlawful association or takes part in the meetings or activities of any such association or contributes or receives or solicits contribution for the purpose of any such association shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. " ( 4 ) IN my opinion, the petitioners closing the shops to protect their property during the bandh period does not fall within the ambit of any of the clauses mentioned in subsection (1) of Section 8 of the Act. Closing a business establishment in pursuance of a band call given, for fear that the property in the shop or establishment may be destroyed by Vandals does not amount to takingpart in the activities of banned organisation activity is not defined in the Act. The dictionary meaning of activity is the "condition of being active or moving about, the exertion of energy; vigorous action, a particular occupation or pursuit". The dictionary meaning of activity is the "condition of being active or moving about, the exertion of energy; vigorous action, a particular occupation or pursuit". It is not the case of the prosecution that calling of bandh is one of the aims or objects of the cpi [ml] Peoples War Group. It is also not the case of prosecution that petitioners are members of the CPI (ML) Peoples Wargroup. Therefore by merely closing their shop for fear that the property in their shop might be destroyed, petitioner cannot be said to have participated in the activity of the said banned association. The word activity in section 8 (1) relates to a positive act of aiding the main objects of the banned organisation, and collecting or solicit contributions for such organisation. Therefore for that reason and for the reason that the petitioners are similarly situate as of the petitioners in criminal Petition No. 4184 of 2001 against whom proceedings in this case were quashed earlier by this Court by the order dated 7-4"2002, the proceedings against the petitioners are also liable to be quashed. Hence, this petition is allowed aim the proceedings against the petitioners in c. CNo. 171 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy, mahabubnagar District, are quashed.