Skip to main content

Failure to lower National Flag at or before sunset - not dishonor of the National Flag

The High Court of Kerala in P.K Satheesh Babu v State of Kerala [Crl M.C 1208 OF 2016] has ruled that mere failure or omission to lower National Flag at or before sunset does not in any manner amount to dishonor of the National Flag. Prosecution was launched against accused for offence under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act,1971. It was alleged that he has not cared to lower the National Flag hoisted in front of his office even at sunset. Taking cue from a Judgment of Bombay High Court and Apex Court, Justice B. Kemal Pasha noted that prosecution launched against petitioner was unnecessary, as he had no intention to dishonor the national flag at any point of time. The bench referred to the ratio laid down by Apex Court in Navin Jindal’s Case[ Civil Appeal No:453 of 2004] which had ruled that flag code being in the nature of mere executive instructions issued by the Central Government do not the posses the sanctity of being a Law contemplated under Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution of India. A reference was also made to the Judgment of Bombay High Court Amgonda Vithobha Pandare v Union of India and others [2012(4)Bom.C.R(Cri) 219] to hold that mere omission to lower the flag after sunset does not amount offence as mentioned in Explanation 4 or Section of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act,1971. The High court noted that under the circumstances in the absence of statutory prescriptions, penal consequences cannot be inflicted on the cases like those of the petitioner. The bench hence quashed all proceedings launched against petitioner in this regard.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a