Affixing Poster Of Political Party Symbol Like 'Lotus' On Electric Poll Not Necessarily Mischief, Wantonly Provoking Riot: Kerala HC Quashes FIR

The Kerala High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a man for affixing poster of a lotus, which is a symbol of a political party, on an electric poll with gum. It was alleged that the accused caused a commotion near Annamkulangara Devi Temple and the Electricity Board had to spend Rs. 63 for removing the poster.

Justice PV Kunhikrishnan observed that affixing a poster containing the symbol of a recognized political party on an electric post cannot be treated as an act done malignantly or wantonly. It added,

"The only overt act attributed to the accused is that he affixed a poster of a lotus, which is a symbol of a political party, on an electric post and made commotion. I am of the considered opinion that even if that act is accepted in toto, the offence under Section 153 IPC is not made out. Of course, it may be an illegal act to affix a poster on an electric post. But affixing a poster containing the symbol of a recognized political party on an electric post cannot be treated as an act done malignantly or wantonly."

The man was booked under Section 153 IPC ('Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot'), Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act (hereinafter, 'PDPP Act') which pertains to 'Mischief causing damage to public property', and Section 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 ('Penalty for intentionally injuring works').

Court said affixing a poster containing a symbol of a recognized political party on an electric post cannot be treated as mischief in all situation. "If these types of cases are treated as mischief within the meaning of Section 425 IPC, there will not be any end to the mischief committed by the citizens."

Court also said that not all cases need full-fledged trial before a court of law and that several cases are such where even Police can settle the matter with application of common sense. It stated that when cases such as the present one are registered for a loss of Rs. 63 to public property, courts of law would be wasting their time to try the same.

Quoting a popular dialogue from Malayalam film 'Action Hero Biju' that for the common man, the Police Station is their District Court, High Court and the Supreme Court, Justice Kunhikrishnan went on to observe,

"...in some situations, common sense is to be invoked by the Police officials while submitting a final report. Several cases can be closed from the Police Station itself. The Police Station is a place where a common man can enter and submit their grievance at any time. In the State of Kerala, several Police stations are declared as “Jana Mythri Police stations”. Nowadays, the Police Stations in the State are citizen friendly. Even children's entertainment area is also there in some Police Stations. Several cases can be settled from the Police Station itself without referring the matter to the court of law. That is why I said that a common sense is necessary before submitting a final report. Simply because a Police Officer is having knowledge in law, will not suffice in all situations....Education alone is not sufficient to act in certain situation. Common sense is also necessary". 

It further noted that the present case also had to be committed to the Sessions Court, since Section 140 of the Electricity Act had also been added. The Court questioned the prosecution regarding the evidence to prove the offence under the provision. 

"There is no case to the prosecution that the accused with an intention to cut off the supply of electricity, cuts or injures or attempts to cut or injure any electric supply line or works. In such circumstances, even if the entire allegations in Annexure-2 final report are accepted in toto, the offence under Sec. 140 of the Electricity Act is not attracted," the Court declared. 

Taking note of the entire procedure at the Sessions Court which would have to take place in order to dispose the present case, when there are already pending cases, the Court reminded police officials to be mindful of the existence of Section 95 IPC which provides for 'Acts causing slight harm' or 'Trivial Acts', while investigating cases. 

"For the alleged loss of Rs.63/- because of affixing a poster on an electric post, the investigating officer in this case filed the chargesheet. In effect, the prosecution case is that one single poster is affixed on a single electricity post. If that is the case, for the loss of Rs.63/-, the entire judicial machinery has to work for days. A judicial officer has to spend lot of time to dispose this case. In such situation, it is the duty of the police officers to find out whether such cases are to be charge sheeted or not. A simple warning to the persons who affix the posters is more than enough in such situation," the Court observed while quashing the proceedings against the petitioner accused. 

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates K.N. Abhilash, Sunil Nair Palakkat, Rithik S. Anand, Anu Paul, and Sreelakshmi Menon P.

Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor Sreeja V. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 528