IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 928 of 2009() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/02/2009 IN C.M.P 954/2009 IN CC.136/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ PETITIONER/ACCUSED:- -------------------------------------------------- ROSLIN JOSEPH, W/O.JOSEPH, MANATHOOR HOUSE, KUDAYATHOOR KARA, VELLIYAMATTOM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. C.J.JOY MS. SHOBA NAIR RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THODUPUZHA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.1063/2008 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION.) ADV. MR. JAYAKRISHNAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.NO.928 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009 ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor. 2. This revision is in challenge of the order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha in C.C.No.136/2008 refusing to discharge petitioner of the charges against her, under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). The charge against petitioner who is the Principal of an educational institution is that on the eve of independence day in the year 2008, the national flag was hoisted in the premises of the school but, it was left unattended there till it was removed on 19.8.2008 and thus by showing disrespect to the national flag she has committed offence punishable under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in view of the materials on record, refused to discharge the petitioner under Section 239 of the Code. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner after arguing the matter Crl.R.P.No.928/09 2 for some time, submitted that the revision petition may be disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to take up all her contentions including those already raised before learned Chief Judicial magistrate, in the course of trial of the case. In the light of that submission, it is not necessary to go into the contentious issues raised by the petitioner in this revision. Revision petition is accordingly closed leaving it open to the petitioner to take up all her contentions in the trial court in the course of trial. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE Acd Crl.R.P.No.928/09 3