Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Raghvendra Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Application U/s 482 No. 8808 of 2023
Decided On : 19-10-2023
Section 482 - Quashing of proceedings - State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 - Section 3/7
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was charged under Section 3/7 of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005 for affixing the national emblem on the number plate of his motorcycle. The charge was made without the necessary sanction of the Central Government, as required by Section 8 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution was not maintainable without the previous sanction of the Central Government, as mandated by Section 8 of the Act. The order of cognizance and the proceedings were quashed, but the charge-sheet was not quashed, leaving the option open for the State to proceed afresh in compliance with the Act.
Issues: The main issue was the lack of necessary sanction for the prosecution under Section 3/7 of the Act, which rendered the proceedings not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of previous sanction of the Central Government for prosecution under the Act, as per Section 8. It held that the State Government did not have the authority to grant sanction for the offence under the Act, and the order of sanction was passed without jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of cognizance and the proceedings, but not the charge-sheet, allowing the State to proceed afresh in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
J.J. MUNIR, J.
1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Code’) seeks to quash the proceedings of Case No. 3558 of 2018, State v. Raghvendra Kumar Yadav (arising out of Case Crime No. 2264 of 2016), under Section 3/7 of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005, Police Station-Khalilabad, District-Sant Kabir Nagar pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar.
2. Heard Mr. Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. Jagdev Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and Mr. D.K. Srivastava, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State.
3. A First Information Report was lodged on 12.11.2016 by one J.N. Tripathi, Sub-Inspector of Police at Police Station-Khalilabad, District-Sant Kabir Nagar, alleging in his recovery memo of a bullet motorcycle that on 12.11.2016, the informant along with Constable, Umesh Mishra, was on security duty at the Punjab National Bank, Main Branch-Khalilabad and had just reached there when he noticed a man move close to the Bank on his motorcycle, which he parked there.
4. A look at the rear side of the motorcycle showed that it bore no registration number. Instead, the number plate had the national emblem of Ashok Stambh on it. Upon inquiring about the rider’s name and address, he revealed it as Raghvendra Kumar Yadav, son of Ram Achal Yadav, a resident of Kuikol colony, Police Station-Kotwali, Khalilabad, District-Sant Kabir Nagar. Upon the rider being asked why he had placed the national emblem on the number plate, he allegedly said that it was affixed there for status. He produced his Driving License that was valid up to 07.07.2023.
5. The First Information Report goes on to allege that Raghvendra Kumar Yadav aforesaid was found misusing the Ashok Stambh, the national emblem by affixing it to the number plate of his motorcycle, which constitutes an offence under Section 3/9 of the State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper use) Act, 2005. He did not produce any papers relating to the motorcycle which is an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act. The applicant was, accordingly, informed of the offence committed by him and at 4.00 O’ Clock in the evening, the motorcycle was taken into custody by the Police. A number of persons were moving on the spot where the applicant was apprehended but despite request, none of those asked to witness the recovery agreed, citing their business with the Bank as pre-occupying.
6. The First Information Report further shows that a report under the Motor Vehicles Act is being separately presented. The recovery memo had been drawn up on the spot, read over and explained. A copy of the recovery memo was handed over to Raghvendra Kumar Yadav, the applicant. The case was investigated by the Police where statements of the first informant and Constable, Umesh Mishra were taken down. After investigation, the Police submitted the impugned charge-sheet on 10.02.2018 whereon the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 17.09.2018.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ravindra Prakash Srivastava points out that the Registration Certificate of the motorcycle is on record as Annexure No. 3.
8. This Court may say straightaway that we do not wish to comment about those matters because there is nothing related to the prosecution under the Motor Vehicles Act impugned here. The Registration Certificate, of whatever worth it is, might be of relevance in the other case said to have been instituted against the applicant by the Police on account of riding the motorcycle, without the necessary documents or the number plate bearing the registration number, but not here.
9. This prosecution is limited to the offence under Section 3/7 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper use) Act, 1950. About this issue also, it may remarked at the outset, that the First Information Report was registered by the Police for
AI
The timing for raising issues regarding absence or vitiation of sanction is crucial, and a mere error, omission, or irregularity in sanction is not fatal unless it results in the failure of justice o....
Absence of required sanction under Section 196 of Cr.P.C. prohibits court from taking cognizance of specific IPC offences.
Absence of sanction can be raised and agitated at very inception but invalidity or illegality of sanction is to be raised during trial.
The absence of sanction under Section 196 I.P.C. rendered the trial void ab initio, allowing for retrial after obtaining the required sanction.
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
