Criminal Application (APL) No. 581 of 2011. Case: Umesh Kishanrao Chopde Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Application (APL) No. 581 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Applicant: A. B. Moon, Adv. and For Respondents: C. N. Adgokar, Addl. P. P., S. A. Mohta, Adv. |
| Judges | M. L. Tahaliyani, J. |
| Issue | Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act (69 of 1971) - Section 2; Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974) - Section 482 |
| Citation | 2012 CriLJ 3142 |
| Judgement Date | March 27, 2012 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
1. Heard Mr. A. B. Moon, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. C. N. Adgokar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No. 1/State and Mr. S. A. Mohta, learned Counsel for non-applicant No. 2.
2. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
3. A very short question arises for determination in this petition:
'Whether non-compliance of Clause 2.1(xi) Flag Code necessarily amounts to an offence punishable under the Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act, 1971.'
The said Clause runs as under:
where the Flag is displayed in open, it should, as far as possible, be flown from sunrise to sunset, irrespective of weather conditions;
4. In the present case, the applicant was a Headmaster of the School where the flag was allegedly found hoisted till mid-night on the flag post. It was set down by the complainant-Police Constable and complaint was made to the police station by the complainant. First Information Report was registered against the applicant and further investigation is going on. While setting down the flag, a Photographer was called and photographs were taken. Statements of the Photographer and other persons presented on the spot have been recorded.
5. The applicant has submitted this application for quashing the First Information Report on the ground that he has been falsely implicated in this case. His submissions are two fold i.e. firstly he has been falsely implicated in this case as no incident as alleged had occurred, secondly even if it is admitted that the flag was found hoisted till mid-night on the flag post, it does not amount to an offence.
6. During the course of hearing, Mr. A. B. Moon, learned Counsel for the applicant, has submitted that, in fact the applicant has been falsely implicated as all the arrangements were made to see that the evidence could be created against the applicant. Mr. A. B. Moon has further submitted that politically motivated case is prepared by the complainant at the instance of the other villagers. Mr. C. N. Adgokar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No. 1 and Mr. S. A. Mohta, learned Counsel for non-applicant No. 2 have submitted that since the applicant has violated the flag code, his act is punishable under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honours Act, 1971.
7. This issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2004 (1) SCALE 677: (AIR 2004 SC 1559), Union of India v. Naveen Jindal and another...
To continue reading
Request your trial