IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1739 of 2009()
1. R.THYAGARAJAN, THOTTATHIL VEEDU,
... Petitioner
2. T.D. SURESH, THARAYIL PARAMBU,
3. K.M. ANTONY, KOCHIER VEEDU,
4. K.V. LAZAR, KAVALAKKAL VEEDU,
5. ALOCIOUS, MALATTUVEEDY,
6. V.M. VIJAYAN, VALAPPIL VEEDU,
7. PREMKUMAR, S/O. RAJAN,KUZHEEPARAMBIL
8. SHEELA JEROM, COUNCILOR, 20TH
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY S.I. OF
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.L.JOSEPH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :04/06/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.No.1739 of 2009
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009.
ORDER
Heard counsel for petitioners and the Public Prosecutor who
appeared for respondents.
2. Petitioners are charged by Kochi Kasba Police for offences
punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 283 read with Section 149 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). The charge is that on 10.5.2007 at about
11-11.30 p.m. they formed unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their
common object blocked the public road to express their protest on the failure of
Government and obstructed vehicular traffic along that road. Petitioners
sought their discharge contending that no offence punishable under Section 283
of the Code is made out. Learned magistrate refused to accept the prayer.
Learned counsel submitted that prima facie the offence under Section 283 of the
Code will not stand. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in
Badrinarain v. State (AIR 1957 Raj. 64).
3. Section 283 of the Code reads thus:
“Danger or obstruction in
public way or line of navigation.-Whoever,
by doing any act, or by omitting to take order
with any property in his possession or under
his charge, causes danger, obstruction or
injury to any person in any public way or public
Crl.R.P.No.1739/2009
2
line of navigation, shall be punished with fine
which may extend to two hundred rupees.”
What is penalized under that provision is not merely in respect of any order as
to the property in the possession of the offender but also causing obstruction to
the public way or public line of navigation. In the decision relied on by the
counsel for petitioner there was no evidence of assemblage on the road for any
common object and that the assemblage came together on the road. Hence it
was found that Section 283 of the Code has no application. Now, this court is
concerned with the question whether petitioners could be discharged as if the
materials on record if unrebutted would not warrant their conviction. In this
case the charge is that petitioners formed unlawful assembly, gathered on the
public road in prosecution of their common object to cause blockade and
obstructed vehicular traffic. On the facts of the case, I find no reason to interfere
with the view taken by the learned magistrate. As such no interference is
required.
Revision petition is dismissed making it clear that it will be open to the
petitioners to raise appropriate contentions in the trial court at the appropriate
stage.
Crl.M.A.No.5311 of 2009 will stand dismissed.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks