Title: Manoj Kumar & Ors. v. State of Kerala
Decided on: 16 November, 2023
+ CRL. REV. PET No. 161 of 2023
CORAM: HON’BLE Justice P. G. Ajithkumar
Introduction
The Kerala High Court ruled that it is not acceptable to resubmit a request for permission to take cognizance of an offence under Section 153(A) of the IPC (‘Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, or residence’) after a delay of nearly five years. It further decided that the prosecution could not claim that the time in question is exempt from prosecution under Section 470(3) Cr.P.C.
Facts of the Case
Sections 143 (punishment for unlawful assembly), 147 (punishment for rioting), 148 (punishment for rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), and 153(A) read with Section 149 (common object) of the IPC were the charges brought against the revision petitioners. They were accused of organizing an illegal gathering and assaulting the de facto complainant as well as a few Bible College students at Maramon. Additionally, it was claimed that the petitioners yelled slogans and made an effort to sow discord and animosity among various religious communities. The petitioners claimed that the prosecution was unlawful because the lower court had recognized the offense far later than the three-year term specified in Section 468 of the Code. They argued that, given the May 2005 date of the incident, the offense should have been recognized by May 2008 at the latest. The petitioners argued that even under Section 470(3) of the Code, the final report’s filing was done after the statute of limitations had passed, and that the lower court’s ruling, which stated that the offense was recognized on time as long as the time it took to get government approval was removed, was incorrect.
Courts analysis and decision
The request for penalty was presented in May 2008, and the Court noted that it was returned within a week to correct formal deficiencies. It then discovered that the request was just resubmitted in January 2013. Thus, it decided that, in accordance with Section 470(3) Cr.P.C., the prosecution would not be entitled to have the time between the request for sanction’s return and its resubmission before the Government omitted. Thus, the petitioners for revision were dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija
