IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 5323 of 2009 Between: N.T.Rama Rao . .Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. By Public Prosecutor and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5323 of 2009 ORDER : Heard Sri K.Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for both the respondents. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the charge sheet filed into Court against the petitioner and 8 others taken on file as C.C. No.33 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothavalasa. 3) The petitioner and others are facing prosecution for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 188 and 283 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 32 of the Police Act, 1861 alleging that the road show was organized on Kothavalasa three road junction on 17.03.2009 at 5.40 P.M in violation of the orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which resulted in a traffic jam and obstruction to the vehicular traffic. The charge sheet also alleged that while the competent authorities have permitted to conduct a public meeting at a specified place, the accused conducted meetings at three road junctions causing vehicular traffic jam. 4) The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to notice that this Court while dealing with issue of road shows did not prohibit the conduct of road shows altogether, but only issued guidelines to regulate such road shows and the charge sheet or the first information report do not disclose as to how the guidelines of the High Court are violated. It is seen from the first information report and the charge sheet that a bald and omnibus allegation has been made that the directions of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh were violated. 5) Even if the allegation that the petitioner and others conducted public meetings at three road junctions contrary to the permission accorded for conducting of a public meeting only at one specified place is true, such a direction under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 could have been given only by the Superintendent or the Assistant Superintendent of Police of the district but not by any of their subordinates. If such a permission is granted under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 and is violated, Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that the complaint in this regard has to be made by the public servant concerned or some other person to whom such a public servant is administratively subordinate to enable any Court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the present case, the charge sheet was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police who could not have been the authority to grant permission for the public meeting and therefore, the complaint/charge sheet is in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 6) That apart, the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioner and others is obviously in consequence to the alleged offence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code and is not independent of the same. Even otherwise, the conduct of public meeting at three road junctions or obstruction to the traffic could not have been considered as causing any danger or injury to any person. In so far as the obstruction in any public way is concerned, which can also be covered by Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one witness to speak about the traffic jam caused by the road show. But, when the conduct of the public meeting at least at one place has been permitted and if the gathering for that public meeting resulted in any inconvenience by way of obstructing the traffic, the same cannot be considered to be with the necessary guilty mens rea to construe the existence of an offence punishable under Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, none of the offences alleged can be said to have any reasonable basis and in any view, the complaint/charge sheet being in violation of Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, has to fail. 7) As the complaint has failed due to its unsustainability, the proceedings in their entirety have to fail, though the 1st accused alone approached this Court by way of this Criminal Petition. 8) Therefore, the further proceedings in C.C. No.33 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kothavalasa are quashed and the Criminal Petition is allowed accordingly. __________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J September 17, 2009 KSH