The Kerala High Court has nullified the criminal proceedings against an individual who attached a poster featuring a lotus, the emblem of a political party, to an electric pole using adhesive. The incident reportedly led to a disturbance near the Annamkulangara Devi Temple, and the Electricity Board incurred a cost of Rs. 63 to remove the poster.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan remarked that placing a poster showcasing the symbol of an acknowledged political party on an electric post cannot be deemed as an act executed with malice or recklessness. He stated,
“The only overt act attributed to the accused is that he affixed a poster of a lotus, which is a symbol of a political party, on an electric post and made commotion. I am of the considered opinion that even if that act is accepted in toto, the offence under Section 153 IPC is not made out. Of course, it may be an illegal act to affix a poster on an electric post. But affixing a poster containing the symbol of a recognized political party on an electric post cannot be treated as an act done malignantly or wantonly.”
The individual had been charged under Section 153 IPC (‘Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot’), Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act (PDPP Act) related to ‘Mischief causing damage to public property’, and Section 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (‘Penalty for intentionally injuring works’).
The court emphasized that not every instance of attaching a political party’s symbol to an electric post can be categorized as mischief.
“If these types of cases are treated as mischief within the meaning of Section 425 IPC, there will not be any end to the mischief committed by the citizens.”
Justice Kunhikrishnan further highlighted the importance of common sense in police proceedings. He cited a dialogue from the Malayalam film ‘Action Hero Biju’, suggesting that for many, the police station represents their primary access to justice. He urged police officials to use discretion and common sense in certain situations, emphasizing that
“Education alone is not sufficient to act in certain situation. Common sense is also necessary.”
The court also questioned the evidence supporting the charge under Section 140 of the Electricity Act, stating,
“There is no case to the prosecution that the accused with an intention to cut off the supply of electricity, cuts or injures or attempts to cut or injure any electric supply line or works.”
Highlighting the judicial resources that would be expended for a mere loss of Rs. 63, the court suggested that a simple warning might have sufficed in such situations. The proceedings against the accused were subsequently quashed.