ORDER

The petitioners have challenged the charge-sheet dated

13.06.2019 filed in Crime No.27/2019 by the respondent - police station against them for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 5 of the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981 (henceforth referred to as 'Act of

1981' for short) and Sections 427 and 149 of IPC. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 14.06.2019 taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru and the registration of C.C.No.115/2019 and all further proceedings.

2. The petitioners contend that the respondent No.2 had lodged a report with the jurisdictional police on 25.05.2019 alleging that some unknown persons had stuck some posters at Batawadi Y Junction and some other places with a malafide intention to besmirch the image of his leader and therefore, requested for action. Based on the above, the respondent No.1 registered Crime No.27/2019 for an offence punishable under Section 427 of IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Act of 1981. The respondent No.1 thereafter filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners. The Trial Court is stated to have taken cognizance of the offences and issued process to the petitioners.

3. It is contended by the petitioners that Section

1(2)(i) and (ii) of Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981 is yet to be made applicable to the town of Tumakuru and therefore, the petitioners cannot be accused of an offence under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act of 1981. It is also contended that the Trial Court failed to apply its mind as to how an offence under Section 427 of IPC was made out. Further, he contended that the respondent No.2 was not the person, who was affected by the contents of the posters and therefore, an offence under Section 149 of IPC was not made out.

4. Elaborating on the grounds urged, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Act of 1981 is deemed to have come into force in the cities of Bangalore, Mysore, Hubli-Dharwad, Mangalore and Belgaum on the 5th day of May, 1981. In so far as other municipalities, notified areas, sanitary boards constituted or continued under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, the provisions of the Act of 1981 would come into force as on the date it is notified by the State Government. He submits that the notification was not issued by the State Government in respect of Tumakuru town and therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1981 cannot be invoked. He submitted that the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) (Amendment) Act, 2020 made the provisions of the Act of 1981 applicable to municipal corporations, larger urban area declared under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and contends that the State Government issued a notification on 20.12.2013 declaring Tumakuru as a larger urban area with effect from 20.12.2013. Therefore, he contends that assuming that the Act of 1981 has come into force in Tumakuru city, then it is only with effect from 20.12.2013 and not before and therefore, the respondent No.1 was not justified in invoking the provisions of the Act of 1981. He further contended that Section 427 of IPC was not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case as no wrongful loss or damage was caused to the public or any person and no property was destroyed or affected. He further submits that the petitioners did not constitute any unlawful assembly and therefore, Section 149 of IPC was not attracted.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the Tumakuru was earlier a City Municipal Council, which was later upgraded to a larger urban area and therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1981 are applicable. He submitted that since the petitioners were all guilty of pasting posters on the wall at Batawadi Y Junction, they had damaged public property and therefore, an offence under Section 427 of IPC was made out. Further, the accused had formed an assemb