Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 279 (AP)

K. M. Jakuiullah v. State of A. P.

2019-10-16

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2019
ORDER : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. 1. The petitioner-A1 seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 1130/2018 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anantapuram," wherein cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 427 & 188 IPC and Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Disfigurement of Open Places and Prohibition of Obscene and Objectionable Posters and Advertisements Act, 1997 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. The prosecution case is that with the issuance of notification for the election of Municipal Corporation of Anantapuram by the State Election Commission of India on 03.03.2014, the election code of conduct came into force. LW1-The Municipal Commissioner-cum-Additional Election Authority, Municipal Corporation, Anantapuram and other related Government officers appraised the political parties to remove the posters, inscribes and other advertisements on public and private walls of Anantapuram Municipal Corporation. In spite of such instructions, A1 & A2, who are the advertising Presidents of two different political parties, disobeyed those orders of the election officers and thus committed the offences under 427 & 188 IPC and Section 4 of the Act. On the complaint given by LW1, the police of Anantapuram II Town Police Station registered, the crime and filed charge sheet after investigation. Hence, the Criminal Petition. 3. Denying the allegations, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend the petitioner-A1 was not the person who personally pasted the objectionable posters and therefore, he cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 4 of the Act. He would submit that the police have to book the case only against those persons who pasted the posters, but not the petitioner. He relied upon the decision in Killi Kruparani v. The State of A.P. 2011 (1) ALD (Cri) 434. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioner-A1 is admittedly the Advertising President of the concerned political party at whose instance the objectionable posters relating to the said party were pasted and therefore, the complainant, who is the Municipal Commissioner-cum-Additional Election Authority, Anantapur Municipal Corporation instructed him and A2 to remove the objectionable posters relating to their respective parties, but they have shown utter disdain to the orders of the election authority and therefore, the petitioner-A1 is liable for the offence and criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. 5. I find considerable force in the argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. I find considerable force in the argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Section 4 of the Act reads as under: "4. Whoever 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 property in which such place is situated shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees but which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both." 6. It is true that as per the above provision the person who 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 property is liable for punishment. In the Killi Kruparani's case (supra) this Court observed that accused therein was not the person who pasted the poster on backdoor of the ambulance nor the poster was pasted on her direction and the concerned police, without catching the person pasted the poster on the ambulance, have chosen to file the criminal case against the accused who was the contesting candidate and therefore, the criminal proceedings were sheer abuse of process of law. 7. So, when the above ruling is perused, it is clear that a person shall be liable under Section 4 of the Act if the objectionable poster is pasted by him personally or on his direction. When the above decision is applied to the instant case, the prosecution version is that LW1 has instructed A1 & A2 that the objectionable posters belonging to their respective parties were affixed in open place to public view and therefore, they have to remove them. It-is interesting to note the petitioner-A1 has not sent any communication stating that the objectionable posters were not belonging to his party or that he has not given any instructions for pasting those posters. It appears, simply he remained silent without following the instructions of LW1. It is to be noted that the petitioner is none other than the Advertising President of the concerned political party. Therefore, prima facie it can be presumed that the objectionable posters were pasted on his direction. In that view, there is a strong prima facie material to prosecute him. It is to be noted that the petitioner is none other than the Advertising President of the concerned political party. Therefore, prima facie it can be presumed that the objectionable posters were pasted on his direction. In that view, there is a strong prima facie material to prosecute him. The petitioner Has to face the trial and establish that the posters were pasted neither by him nor on his direction. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending if any, shall stand closed.