The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of intentional disrespect to the National Flag under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, and the significance of the accused's role and motive in determining liability.

C.V. Sirpurkar, J.

1. This miscellaneous criminal case under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the complainant, is directed against the order dated 05.11.2015 passed by the Court of 6th ASJ, Rewa in Criminal Revision No.296/2014 affirming the order dated 25.08.2014 passed by the Court of CJM, Rewa, whereby the complaint under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to in this order as 'the Act') was dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of this miscellaneous criminal case may briefly be stated thus: Complainant Anand Tiwari filed a complaint in the Court of CJM, Rewa stating that he is a public spirited person. Respondent/accused no.3 S.N. Rupla was Collector of District-Rewa. On 26.01.2014, on the occasion of Republic Day, flag hoisting ceremony was organized in the premises of Collectorate, Rewa, wherein the National Flag was unfurled upside down that is to say, the 'Saffron side down'. Thus, on the solemn occasion of the Republic Day, the National Flag was insulted. Respondent no.3 saluted the National Flag, which was in reverse position and thereafter, National Anthem was sung in front of the Flag in such a position. After that, the Flag was pulled down in an insolent manner. Thus , respondent no. 3 intentionally/carelessly performed aforesaid act and thereby insulted the National Flag and the Constitution of India. The Collector is the leader of the Collectorate premises. All acts are conducted in the premises on the orders of and under the protection of the Collector. Therefore, Collector was responsible for unfurling of the Flag in reverse condition and thereby causing insult to the National Flag.

3. In the statements of the complainant Anand Tiwari and his witnesses Mayank Bhushan and Vivek Kumar Mishra, it was stated that when the National Anthem commenced, some people invited attention of the respondent No.3 to the fact that the Flag has been unfurled in saffron side down position; however, respondent No.3 motioned them to keep quite. After the National Anthem was concluded, he directed the staff members to set the Flag right. Thereafter, two of the staff members climbed the roof of the Collectorate. They carelessly and in an insolent manner set the Flag right. It was further stated that if respondent No.3 wanted, he could have stopped National Anthem midway through and set the Flag right; however, he did not do so, which betrays the fact that the Collector unfurled the Flag in Saffron side down position, intentionally.

4. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 25.08.2014 dismissed the private complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. holding that there was no ground to proceed further against the respondent No.3.

5. The order dated 25.08.2014 was challenged in Criminal Revision No.296/2014. Learned 6th ASJ, Rewa, placing reliance upon numerous judicial precedents and writing a well-reasoned order, affirmed the order of dismissal passed by the learned CJM and dismissed the criminal revision.

6. By impugned order dated 05.11.2015, learned ASJ held that even if all allegations made in the complaint and the statements recorded under Section 200/202 of the Cr.P.C. are taken at their face value and presume it to be true, there would be no ground hold that the respondent No.3 'intentionally' displayed the Indian National Flag with Saffron side down. It was further held that the National Flag was unfurled by the respondent No.3 in discharge of his official duties. As such, for want of sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., private complaint could not be proceeded with. Learned Additional Sessions Judge was also of the view that this complaint is devoid of substance and was not filed with the intention of ensuring honour to the National Flag but was filed with an eye on attendant publicity; therefore, the order of dismissal passed by the CJM under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., was affirmed.

7. U