Bangalore District Court
Halsuru Ps vs Uttahiah on 8 April, 2026
KABC0D0151232018
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
TRAFFIC COURT-I AT MAYOHALL, BENGALURU
Present : Smt. Neelam Nitin Rao
Judicial Magistrate First Class
Traffic Court-I, Bengaluru
DATED 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2026
C.C. No. 15015/2018
Complainant : Halasur Tr PS
Bangalore
(Rep by: State by Sr. APP)
V/s
Accused : Uttaiah
S/o. Somaiah
Aged about 32 years
R/at No. 256, Gayathri Layout
Sarjapura Road
Bengaluru-560042
(Rep by Adv. Sri. LKS)
1. Date of commission of offence : 17.03.2016
2. Offence alleged : U/s. 2 Prevention of
Insult to National
Honour Act 1971
3. Date of recording of evidence : 25.03.2025
4. Date of Judgment : 08.04.2026
2
C.C. No. 15015/2018
JUDGMENT
The PI of Hansuru P. S. has filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971, in Crime No. 81/2016.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution's case are as follows:
The CW1 lodged a complaint against the accused, stating that on 17.03.2016 at 02.00 p.m., the accused had hoisted the National Flag at the Park Hotel upside down, thereby degrading it. He thereby complained about the hotel's management. A case registered under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971.
3. After receipt of the complaint, the investigating officer registered the case and visited the spot, conducted a mahazar in the presence of mahazar witnesses. Inquired and obtained statements of witnesses. After completion of the investigation, the IO has filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971.
4. After receipt of the Charge Sheet, this court has verified all the prosecution records and considering that there are prima facie materials to proceed further against the accused, cognizance for the alleged offence punishable under section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971 was taken, and a criminal case was registered against the accused in a register no. III, and the process was issued against the accused.
3C.C. No. 15015/2018
5. The accused appeared through his counsel and availed bail. Prosecution papers were supplied to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 CrPC. As there are no grounds to discharge the accused. The substance of the accusation was recorded, read over and explained to the accused, in the language best known to him. The accused pleads not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
6. The prosecution has examined 3 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.3 and marked 7 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7(a). After the completion of the prosecution's evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC is recorded, read over and explained to the accused. The accused specifically denied possession of all incriminating circumstances that appeared against him in the prosecution's evidence. However, he did not choose to lead the defence evidence. Hence, the case was posted for arguments.
7. Heard arguments canvassed by learned Sr APP and learned counsel for the accused. Meticulously perused the documents placed on record.
8. The following points arise for my consideration; Point No.1: Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 17.03.2016 at 02.00 p.m., the accused had intentionally hoisted the National Flag on the Park Hotel by Green, White and Saffron colours upside down and had degraded the National Flag. Thereby, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971.
4C.C. No. 15015/2018 Point No.2: What order?
9. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the negative
Point No.2 : As per the foregoing
for the following reasons
REASONS
10. Points No.1: In this case, the prosecution bears the burden to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They must demonstrate that the accused intentionally dishonoured the National Flag by displaying it upside down and committed an insult to it. Additionally, the prosecution has shown that the accused is solely responsible for these actions.
11. The learned Senior APP contended that the accused insulted the national flag by hoisting it upside down, as documented. Such actions are serious and must be punished to the maximum extent permissible by law. Therefore, he prayed for the conviction.
12. Conversely, the defence counsel argued that the prosecution did not sufficiently prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They stated that the accused did not commit any wrongdoing. The Investigating Officer incorrectly identified the accused, and those responsible were not charged as accused. There is no evidence linking the accused to the crime. Therefore, they requested acquittal.
5C.C. No. 15015/2018
13. To bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution has examined 3 witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and marked 7 documents as Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P7. The CW1 Sri Santhosh Kumar was examined as PW1. In his chief evidence, he stated that on 15.03.2016 at 02.00 p.m., after lunch, while going near The Park Hotel, Bengaluru, at the front gate, he saw that the national flag was posted upside down. He captured photographs and filed a complaint online. On the same evening, the police called him and asked him to file a written complaint. As it was late evening, he filed a complaint. The next day, it was marked as Exhibit P1, and his signature was marked as Exhibit P1A. He gave two photographs to the police. They were marked as Exhibit P2, and his signature as 2a. The photographs were marked as Exhibit P3 and P4. The next day at 11.00 p.m., the police inspected the spot. The mahazar was marked as Exhibit P5, and his signature was marked as 5a. He has not seen who has hosted the flag up and down. However, he has not identified the accused.
14. Treating this witness as partly hostile, the learned Senior APP cross-examined him, stating that on 22.04.2016, the police summoned him and showed him the accused. He identified the accused at the police station. He denied the suggestions.
15. During cross-examination by the defence, he stated that in 2016, he was working with Collier's consulting real estate. His office is 300 feet from the hotel, which he has never visited. The hotel is 50 meters from Trinity Circle, and he acknowledged that police vehicles frequently move on that road.
6C.C. No. 15015/2018 Several other buildings are located near the hotel, which can be seen from nearby hotels and a mall. He was unsure if there were any CCTV cameras. Both he and CW4 are police officers, but he did not know whom the police had questioned. He said he went straight to his office from the incident site and did not notify his friends. The police did not issue any notice to him. He couldn't remember the phone number from which he received the call. Although he admitted that his complaint lacks a specific date, he denied knowing the contents of the mahazar. CW6 has also signed the mahazar. In Ex.P1 and P5, there are discrepancies in the name and signature, and he signed Exhibit P5 on the road.
16. He stated that he took photographs with his mobile phone. Exhibit P1 does not mention that these were taken using a mobile device. He personally printed the photos at his office. CW4 and CW6 were with him when he took the photos. He doesn't remember if he printed them at his office or elsewhere. He has not recorded any videos. The police have not inquired about his mobile phone. He admits that online and market photos can be edited but denies that, on the specified date and time, the national flag was not hoisted or lowered. Exhibit P1 does not indicate he filed an online complaint. He was summoned by the police, but they did not question him about it. He does not recall the contents of Exhibit P2. He denied other suggestions as well.
17. Upon careful review of PW1's entire testimony, it is evident that although he mentioned the accused had the flag hoisted upside down at the Park Hotel, he didn't know it was the accused who did it. He has not identified the accused and has 7 C.C. No. 15015/2018 made several contradictory statements regarding the filing of the complaint.
18. The prosecution examined CW4, Sri. Vijendra, as PW2. In his chief evidence, he stated that he recognised his signature on Exhibits P2 and P5. He mentioned that on 18.05.2015, he signed his name at a police station and also signed at another location. One signature was as a witness, and the other was on the mahazar. Exhibits P3 and P4 show photographs of the national flag being hoisted and lowered. These photographs were available when CW1 filed a complaint. He signed Exhibit P5 near the Park Hotel. A mahazar regarding the incident was prepared by the police. He signed Exhibit P5 on 19.05.2015.
19. Treating this witness as partly hostile to learned Senior APP, partly cross-examined him and suggested that on 18.03.2016, he signed Ex.P.2 in a police station. When the CW1 had lodged a complaint, he signed Ex.P.5 on 19.03.2016 near the park. He admits these suggestions. During cross- examination by the defence, he stated that in 2016 he was working with Collier's International Real Estate Company. Collier's International Company is situated 150 to 200 metres from the Park Hotel. He has never been inside the hotel. He didn't know the boundaries. There is a people movement on the spot. He didn't know that there was a CCTV camera in the park hotel. When the incident occurred, it may have been between 02:00 and 02:30 p.m. When he returned after lunch, he saw that the fly was upside down. He didn't know who had hoisted the flag. When he was there, CW1 and other friends were, too. On that day, Satish was present. He didn't know who the other 8 C.C. No. 15015/2018 person was. In his company, he can go for lunch at 01.30 p.m. Daily, he goes for lunch between 01.00 and 01.30 p.m. He has not lodged a complaint. The second time they went to the police station, he didn't remember who was present. Exhibits P3 and P4 were printed in Halsuru Cyber by CW1 and had denied other suggestions put to him.
20. Upon careful review of PW2's evidence, it is clear that he did not identify the accused and explicitly stated that he did not know who hoisted the flag. Although he mentioned that the flag was hosted upside down, he did not elaborate on this point. Additionally, in the core evidence, he made a contradictory statement about the incident.
21. The prosecution examined CW7, Sri C.C. Muthanna, as PW3. His main testimony was that in 2016, he served as security director at the Park Hotel and was aware of the incident. On 17.03.2017, he was still the security director and overseeing three hotels. He learned that a complaint had been filed against the hotel about the flag being hoisted upside down. However, he did not witness the incident and did not know who hoisted the flag. Although he identified the accused, he stated he did not know who hoisted the flag and had not given any statement to the police. The senior APP, considering this witness as hostile, fully cross-examined him, and suggestions were made that on 17.03.2016, the accused had hoisted the national flag upside down at the Park Hotel. The witness denied all suggestions. Upon reviewing the prosecution's documents, it is noted that the prosecution examined eight witnesses but only managed to examine three. PW.1 and PW.2 did not identify the accused, 9 C.C. No. 15015/2018 while PW3 identified him but did not provide any relevant testimony.
22. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971. It reads as follows:
Section 2: Insults to the Indian National Flag and Constitution of India.
Whoever in any public place or in any other place within public view burns, mutilates, defaces, defiles, disfigures, destroys, tramples upon or [otherwise shows disrespect to or brings] into contempt (whether by words, either spoken or written, or by acts) The Indian National Flag or the Constitution of India or any part thereof, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Explanation 1. Comments expressing disapprobation or criticism of the Constitution or of the Indian National Flag or of any measures of the Government with a view to obtain an amendment of the Constitution of India or an alteration of the Indian National Flag by lawful means do not constitute an offence under this section.
Explanation 2. The expression "Indian National Flag" includes any picture, painting, drawing or photograph, or other visible representation of the Indian National Flag, or of any part or parts thereof, made of any substance or represented on any substance.
Explanation 3. The expression "public place" means any place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public and includes any public conveyance.
[Explanation 4. The disrespect to the Indian National Flag means and includes;
(a) a gross affront or indignity offered to the Indian National Flag; or
(b) dipping the Indian National Flag in salute to any person or thing; or
(c) flying the Indian National Flag at half-mast except on occasions on which the Indian National Flag is flown at half-
mast on public buildings in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government; or
(d) using the Indian National Flag as a drapery in any form whatsoever except in State funerals or armed forces or other para-military forces funerals; or 10 C.C. No. 15015/2018 [(e) using the Indian National Flag,
(i) as a portion of costume, uniform or accessory of any description which is worn below the waist of any person; or
(ii) by embroidering or printing it on cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins, undergarments or any dress material; or]
(f) putting any kind of inscription upon the Indian National Flag; or
(g) using the Indian National Flag as a receptacle for receiving, delivering or carrying anything except flower petals before the Indian National Flag is unfurled as part of celebrations on special occasions, including the Republic Day or the Independence day; or
(h) using the Indian National Flag as covering for a statute or a monument or a speaker's desk or a speaker's platform; or
(i) allowing the Indian National Flag to touch the ground or the floor or trail in water intentionally; or
(j) draping the Indian National Flag over the hood, top and sides or back or on a vehicle, train, boat or an aircraft or any other similar object; or
(k) using the Indian National Flag as a covering for a building; or
(l) intentionally displaying the Indian National Flag with the "saffron" down.
23. The core element that needs to be established by the prosecution is that the accused had the authority to hoist a flag and that he intentionally hoisted the national flag upside down to degrade the dignity of the national flag. As per section 2(l), the accused intentionally displayed the Indian National Flag with the "saffron" side down. The mens rea should be established by the prosecution. These very basic ingredients remained unestablished by the prosecution. The casual investigation itself indicates that no proper investigation has been conducted. The prosecution did not put forth that the accused had the authority or was responsible for the act.
11C.C. No. 15015/2018
24. The accused counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka between Chandrashekar Junjappa Vs State of Karnataka, reported in 2013 (1) AKR 346. The Hon'ble High Court, in the facts and circumstances of that case, has held that, "The prosecution has not come up with clean hands-Majority of prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses and even among them there was gross inconsistency- None of the eyewitnesses could give a clear and correct account of the incident."
25. The accused counsel also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court between Renu Kunta Mallaiah V/s State of A.P., reported in 2008(4) Crimes 241 (SC), wherein it was held that "A person cannot be convicted based on unsatisfactory evidence. Unsatisfactory nature of evidence, the prosecution cannot be said to have established the accusation."
26. He further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka between D.G. Gurumurthy and another V/s. State of Karnataka, reported in 2010(2) KCCR 1508, wherein it was held that, "The evidence adduced by the prosecution was full of infirmities and did not inspire confidence. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, they are entitled to an order of acquittal."
27. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court between Bhimsingh Vs The state of Karnataka and another, reported in Criminal Petition No. 200201/2006, wherein it was held that "The provision under Section 2 of the Act, 1971, 12 C.C. No. 15015/2018 does not apply against the petitioner. Since the petitioner neither offered indignity to the National Flag nor intentionally displayed the National Flag with the saffron side down."
28. I have carefully examined the authorities relied upon by the learned defence counsel. With due respect, the facts and circumstances differ; however, it is a well-established legal principle that an accused cannot be held guilty based on unsatisfactory, uncorroborated evidence. Additionally, to prove guilt under section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971, it must be shown that the accused intended to insult the national flag.
29. Revisiting the current case, the respondent has not demonstrated the accused's presence at the scene on the date specified by the prosecution. As noted above, whether the accused was present or not, he had the authority to hoist the flag, and doing so intentionally--knowing that lowering the saffron flag could insult the national flag--must be proven by the prosecution.
30. It is the fundamental duty of all citizens of India to uphold the dignity and honour of our national flag, emblem, and anthem, and to respect our country. Any act that disrespects or degrades these symbols cannot be ignored and will be taken seriously. However, if the prosecution's case is unclear or weakly presented, no action can be taken against the accused, especially when no evidence is on record. In criminal cases, the evidence must be conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt; a mere preponderance of proof is insufficient. The prosecution 13 C.C. No. 15015/2018 failed to establish key facts, such as whether the flag was hoisted upside down, the reason for hoisting the flag on 17.03.2016 at the Park Hotel premises, and whether the accused had the authority to do so. Investigation shortcomings and lack of corroboration in the evidence further weaken the case. In the absence of concrete evidence, a benefit of doubt was granted to the accused. Therefore, I answer point no. 1 in the negative.
31. Point No.2: For myriad reasons discussed supra, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused was not found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971.
Acting U/sec 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971.
Bail bonds of the accused and that of his surety bond shall continue till the expiry of the appeal period. (Dictated to stenographer, transcribed and typed by her on the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 08th April 2026). Digitally signed by NEELAM NEELAM NITIN RAO NITIN RAO 12:17:28 Date: 2026.04.29 +0530 (Neelam Nitin Rao) JMFC, Traffic Court - 1 Bangalore 14 C.C. No. 15015/2018 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON PROSECUTION SIDE:
1. PW.1 : Sri. Santhosh Kumar
2. PW.2 : Sri. Vijayendra
3. PW.3 : Sri. C.C. Muthanna LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON PROSECUTION SIDE:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.2 : Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.3 & 4 : Photographs (2) Ex.P.5 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.6 : Statement of PW.1 Ex.P.7 : Statement of PW.3
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED ON DEFENCE SIDE:
NIL (Dictated to stenographer, transcribed and typed by her on the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 08th April 2026).
NEELAM Digitally signed by
NEELAM NITIN RAO
NITIN RAO +0530
Date: 2026.04.29 12:17:22
(Neelam Nitin Rao)
JMFC, Traffic Court - 1
Bangalore