Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
Vinu C. Kunjappan S/o Kunjappan – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused's responsibility in flag hoisting. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. definition of disrespect to national flag. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.410/2016 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Angamaly (for short, the trial court). The offences alleged against him are punishable under Section 2 (a) of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (for short, the Act of 1971), read with Part-III, Section III , Rule 3.6 of the Flag Code of India, 2002 (for short, the Flag Code, 2002).
2. The petitioner was working as the Secretary of Angamaly Municipality. The prosecution allegation is that on Independence Day in the year 2015, the National Flag was hoisted in the compound of the Angamaly Municipality in the presence of the petitioner, and it was not lowered till noon of 17.8.2015. The Station House Officer, Angamaly Police Station, registered a suo motu FIR. Annexure I is the FIR. After the investigation, Annexure II final report was filed before the trial court. The trial court received the final report on file, took cognizance of the offence and numbered the case C.C.No.410/2016. The petitioner has approached t
Mere inaction in not lowering the National Flag does not constitute an offense under the Act without mens rea.
The failure to lower the National Flag after sunset does not violate Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act if there is no intent to dishonour the flag.
Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view t....
Mere presence at flag hoisting where flag later inverted insufficient for offence under Section 2(4)(l) without evidence of intentional display; cognizance without reasons invalid; proceedings quashe....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of actus reus and mens rea for an offence under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.
The court held that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to quash proceedings based on factual disputes, which must be resolved by the trial court.
The intention behind an act is essential in determining whether it constitutes an insult under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
