Delhi Court Acquits Swati Maliwal, Others In 2011 FIR Over Pro-Lok Pal Bill Protest

A Delhi Court has recently acquitted AAP Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal and two men in an FIR registered against them in 2011 over their protest raising anti-government and pro-Lok Pal Bill slogans, allegedly in violation of Delhi Police's Prohibitory Order.

ACJM Divya Malhotra of Rouse Avenue Courts acquitted Maliwal, Arvind Gaur and Neeraj Kumar Pandey of the offences under Section 188 (disobeying an order from a public servant) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the presence of the accused persons at the spot beyond any reasonable doubt, the benefit of which had to be granted to them.

“Thus, it is held that the quintessential link connecting the accused with the crime is missing in the case and the prosecution has failed to establish the presence of the accused at the alleged crime scene,” the court said.

It added: “To sum up, in order to prove its case, first and foremost the prosecution was required to show that the order was promulgated in the manner prescribed by law and the accused persons had knowledge of the Prohibitory Order despite which they disobeyed the same. Same is lacking in the present case.”

It was Delhi Police's case that the protest of the accused persons caused traffic jam at Connaught Place Inner Circle and they did not leave the spot despite warning. 

The prosecution examined 13 witnesses, out of which 12 were police witnesses and one was a public witness.

While acquitting the accused persons, the judge said that except for bald oral statements of the police witnesses, there was nothing on record to show as to how the Prohibitory Order was communicated to the public at large or the crowd that had gathered at the spot.

“There is no reference of use of any such modes in the entire chargesheet let alone any iota of evidence being produced in support thereof. Besides, there are no photographs to show the presence of banners nor any seizure by the IO. Therefore, the inclusion of such statements for the first time in the examination-in-chief by the witness is an improvisation and appears to be an afterthought,” the court said.

It added that mere disobedience of prohibitory order cannot be made punishable under section 188 of IPC unless it is shown that such disobedience caused any obstruction, annoyance or injury to a person lawfully employed.

“Thus, it is held that there is a complete non-compliance of the mandate of law regarding the manner of communication of the Prohibitory Order and the ingredients required for attracting the offence under Section 188 IPC have not been fulfilled,” the judge concluded.

Click here to read order