The revision petitioner herein was given summons from the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg under Section 120(d) of the Kerala Police Act in a petty case filed by the police, as STC.No.3314/2013. On coming to know that a warrant is pending, the revision petitioner filed CMP.No.1407/2014 to drop the proceedings on two grounds. The first ground is that the police is incompetent to submit a final report in a non cognizable case, and the second ground is that the allegation against the petitioner will not constitute the offence punishable under Section 120(d) of the Kerala Police Act. That application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by Order dated 26.2.2014. The said Order is under challenge in this revision petition.
2. On hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and on a perusal of the case records I find that
Crl.R.P.No.497/2014.
2 the said prosecution cannot proceed under the law. The allegation against the revision petitioner is that without the permission of the KSEB he exhibited a flex board on an electric post at Nileshwar. Just hanging a poster or flex board on an electric post will not constitute the offence punishable under Section 120(d) of the Kerala Police Act. For a prosecution under the said section there must be a definite allegation that any wall, building or other structure was seen defaced in any manner, without the prior permission of the custodian of the property. Here it is not known whether the KSEB has made any complaint, or how the police could find out that it was without the permission of the KSEB. The expression 'other structures' must be read along with the words 'walls and buildings'. In Manuel v. State of Kerala, reported in 2012(4) KLT 708 this Court held that affixing a poster on a wall will not constitute the offence punishable under Section 120(d) of the Kerala Police Act. I find that the prosecution against the revision petitioner under Section 120(d) of the Kerala Police Act, is unsustainable, and the prosecution can be dropped.
Crl.R.P.No.497/2014.
3
3. There is no final report in this case, as meant under section 173 Cr.PC. What is filed by the police is only a petty case complaint. This is not a case of final report filed by the police after investigation on an FIR. Anyway, I find that the allegations will not constitute the offence under section 120(d) of the Police Act. I am inclined to pass orders closing the proceedings against the revision petitioner.
In the result, this revision is allowed. The impugned Order of the court below is set aside and the further proceedings against the revision petitioner in STC.No.3314/2013 are hereby closed.
Sd/-
P. UBAID, (Judge)
Kvs/-
-// true copy //-
PA TO JUDGE.