THE STATE OF KERALA versus K. AJITH & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 774 · Decided: 28-07-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 13 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
774
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 774
774
THE STATE OF KERALA
v.
K. AJITH & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 697 of 2021)
JULY 28, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 321 – Withdrawal of prosecution – Respondents-MLAs
allegedly disrupted the presentation of the budget by climbing on
to the dais of the Speaker and damaging furniture and articles
causing huge loss – Registration of criminal case at the behest of
the Legislative Secretary u/ss. 447 and 427 r/w s. 34 IPC and s.
3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 –
Cognizance taken by Chief Judicial Magistrate-CJM upon
submission of the final report u/s 173 CrPC – Application u/s 321
by the public prosecutor seeking sanction to withdraw the case
against the respondents – CJM declined to grant permission to the
public prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution of the respondents
u/s. 321 – High Court upheld the order – On appeal, held: Privileges
and immunities are not gateways to claim exemptions from the general
law of the land, particularly, the criminal law which governs the
action of every citizen – To claim an exemption from the application
of criminal law would be to betray the trust which is impressed on
the elected representatives as the makers and enactors of the law –
Withdrawal application is based on a fundamental misconception
of the constitutional provisions contained in Art. 194 – Alleged act
of destruction of public property within the House by the members
to lodge their protest against the presentation of the budget cannot
be regarded as essential for exercising their legislative functions,
nor can be equated with the freedom of speech in the legislature,
thus, not covered by the privileges guaranteed under the
Constitution – Allowing the prosecution to be withdrawn would only
show that the elected representatives are exempt from the mandate
of criminal law – Thus, the orders passed by the CJM and the High
Court are upheld – Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,
1984.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
775
s. 321 – Withdrawal of prosecution – Exercise of power by
the Public Prosecutor u/s. 321 – Exercise of jurisdiction by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate – General principles – Formulation of.
s. 321 – Matter pertaining to declining of application for
withdrawal made by the public prosecutor u/s. 321 CrPC by Chief
Judicial Magistrate and the High Court – Plea that the video
recording of the incident was procured from the Electronic Record
Room of Assembly without the permission of the Speaker; and that
the video recording lacks the certification required for admissibility
of evidence – Held: Questions of admissibility of evidence, absent
certifications etc., are to be adjudged by the trial court during the
stage of trial – It is not the duty of this Court, in an application u/s.
321 to adjudicate upon evidentiary issues and examine the
admissibility or sufficiency of evidence – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.
65B.
s. 197(1) – Sanction of speaker for prosecution against
accused-MLAs – Requirement of – Held: No provisions warranting
the sanction of the speaker to initiate criminal prosecution either
specific to offence or specific to class – Thus, on facts, prosecution
against accused not vitiated for want of sanction.
Constitution of India:
Arts. 105 and 194 – Privileges and immunities of Members of
Parliament and MLAs – Interpretation – Scope of – Explained.
Art. 194 – Powers, privileges, etc, of the House of Legislatures
and of the members and committees thereof – Parliamentary
proceedings – Immunity from publication of proceedings of the
House – Held: Parliamentary proceedings does not include all
activities inside the house – It is only limited to essential functions
of members in their official capacity for participation and
deliberation in the house – Act of destruction and vandalism not
manifestation of freedom of speech and cannot be termed as
proceedings of the assembly – Thus, video recording of the incident
was not a “proceeding” of the Assembly, which would be protected
from legal proceedings u/Art.194(2).
Art. 136 – Jurisdiction under – Exercise of – Matter pertaining
to declining of application for withdrawal made by the public
prosecutor u/s. 321 CrPC by Chief Judicial Magistrate and the High
THE STATE OF KERALA v. K. AJITH & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
776
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
Court – Interference with – Held: Court not to embark upon a rovin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.