Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The revision petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.755/2010 of the Chokli Police Station registered for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Secs. 143, 145, 147, 148, 153, 352, 332 and 333 read with Sec.149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.3(2)(c) of the Prevention of Damages to Public Properties Act, 1982 (for short 'the PDPP Act').

2. The prosecution case is that on 27/10/2010 at 18.10 hours at Thokkottuvayal of Peringathoor amsom, about 20 unidentified CPM activists and about 100 IUML activists were in a victorious march after the counting of the Panchayat election and they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked the complainant and other three Police Constables and caused damages to the police vehicles and thereby committed the offences alleged against them. Now he stands charge sheeted for trial.

14. This Court considered the issue involved in a withdrawal of prosecution for the offence under the PDPP Act in Dineshan K.V. and Another Vs. State of Kerala and Others (2013 (4) KHC 206) and held as follows:-


               "15.    It is a matter of common

          knowledge    as   well     as   a  reasonable

          presumption that      the commission of any

offence causing mischief or damages to the public property under the PDPP Act or by attacking public servants while acting in discharge of their public duty is against the public interest and public peace. Necessarily, it follows that the withdrawal of the prosecution of such offences is also against public interest and public peace and consent for withdrawing prosecution of such offences cannot be granted. How the continuance of prosecution of the offences causing damages to the public property under the PDPP Act or the offences attacking public servants on public duty would adversely affect the public interest or public peace or how the withdrawal of such prosecution would promote public interest or public peace? I am also unable to accept the contention that withdrawal of prosecution of offences causing damages to public property under the PDPP Act and attacking the public servants while acting in discharge of their duty is for 'public interest' or 'public justice', the essential causes for which consent to withdraw from prosecution can be granted, in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred above. So, the withdrawal of such prosecutions under the guise of public interest, public policy or public justice is also impermissible. I remind myself that all the decisions referred above would say that Public Prosecutor may withdraw from prosecution of the accused in order to further broad ends of public interest, public order and peace.

16. If there is any other reason overruling the above said common knowledge and presumption involved in the withdrawal of such prosecution, it is for the Public Prosecutor to satisfy the Court with sufficient reasons overruling the public interest of public justice. Unless the Court is fully satisfied with such reasons overruling the common knowledge and presumption as stated above, the Court is not inclined to grant consent to withdraw from prosecution of the accused who have allegedly committed the offences under the PDPP Act or offences attacking servants on duty in view of the decisions referred above."

15. Going by the application filed by the Public Prosecutor, there is no reason overruling common knowledge and the presumption that the commission of any offence causing mischief or damage to public property under the PDPP Act or by attacking public servants while acting in discharge of their public duty is against public interest and public peace.

16. In all the above decisions, it is unambiguously stated that withdrawal from prosecution can be for the public interest and public justice alone. Necessarily it follows that withdrawal of prosecution of such offences which caused damage to public property and injuries to public servant is also against public interest and public peace, and consent for withdrawal of prosecution of such offence cannot be granted.