PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) Issue notice. Learned P.P. accepts notice on behalf of the respondent State. Thus, service is complete.
(2.) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.
(3.) The petitioner has preferred this misc. petition for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Regular Case No.927/2010 pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence), Jodhpur. It is further prayed that order dated 7.4.2014 framing charges against the petitioner for the offence under Section 2-F/13(1)(b) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Section 51/63 of Copyright Act, 1957 Section 3/5 of Emblems and Name (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 and Section 2 of Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971. 3. 1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 21.8.2017 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.189/2015 (Manu Bhai C Joshi v. State of Rajasthan) and S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2964/2014 (Harihar Sarma and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan) quashed the proceedings of Criminal Regular Case No.927/2010 pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offence), Jodhpur against the other accused (petitioners therein). The order of this Court reads as follows:- "1. S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.189/2015 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been preferred against the order dated 16.10.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Revision Petition No.271/2014, whereby the revision petition was dismissed, affirming the order dated 07.04.2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jodhpur in Criminal Regular Case No.927/2010, by which the learned court below has ordered to frame charges against the petitioner for the offence under Section 2-F/13(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Section 51/63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 Section 3/5 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 and section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. 2. S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.2964/2014 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 has been preferred against the order dated 16.10.2014 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur in Criminal Revision No.270/2014 arising out of the order dated 07.04.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur in Cr. O. No.927/2010. 3. The petitioner in S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.189/2015 is the office bearer of the Gujarat State Cooperative Consumers Federation Limited, which is a Public Body. 4. The petitioners in S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.2964/2014 are the office bearers of the Banking Institution. 5. The present complaint was arising out of a newspaper report to the effect that the accused have printed the map of India, by showing the area of Kashmir and Lakshdeep (Andaman-Nikobar) over T-Series Super Cassette and note-book, which was said to be printed by the Gujarat Cooperative Consumers Federation Limited in the year 1998 and similar charge on the Banking Institution. 6. Upon investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for the offences under Section 2-F/13(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act; Section 51/63 of the Copyright Act; Section 3/5 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act and section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act before the competent court. 7. The charges were framed against the petitioners for all the aforementioned offences vide order dated 07.04.2014. The revision petition filed against the said order was dismissed on 16.10.2014, whereby, the earlier order passed on 07.04.2014 was affirmed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners state that the petitioners are office bearers of the Public Body and Banking Institution respectively, and there were general Resolutions to publish the copies, and in fact, the whole act was a bonafide mistake, as they did have any intention whatsoever to commit the aforesaid offences. 9. It has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners themselves were holding the Chair from where the orders were passed to print the notebooks by Gujarat State Cooperative Consumers Federation Limited in the year 1998 and the Banking Institution, but were merely incidentally involved in the decision. The executing agency was also different. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners also stated that the order of printing was limited to logo/monogram and address of the Company, and no other format was prescribed by the present petitioners, so as to implicate them, as having been responsible for committing the aforementioned offences. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that the petitioners had a limited role only in relation to monogram on the notebooks, and as per learned counsel for the petitioner, the legislative purport of the aforesaid provisions of law was well defined and the petitioners thus did fall within the purview of the said offences. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner/office bearers of the Banking Institution submits that the petitioners have issued a corrigendum for rectification of the aforesaid error alleged to have been committed by them. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the primary job of the petitioners was to publish such notebooks and it was only incidental to the decision of the Body concerned that a decision has been taken to print such notebooks, and once the decision was taken by the Body concerned, then merely the petitioner was to execute the same, but the execution did include designing, and particularly designing the map of the country, as it was left to the printer to make necessary printing. The bonafide belief of the petitioners was that the map which has the standard format and has its own sanctity, shall be printed on the notebooks, strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. 15. The notebooks were distributed individually, and since the map was printed at the back of the notebooks, therefore, it was possible for the petitioner to have taken note of the fact that there was aberration in the map of the country. 16. It is the case of the prosecution that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioners to have insulted the country by giving a wrong map. 17. All the aforesaid three Acts i.e. Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971; Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950; and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, have been enacted with a specific legislative intention to put reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India. 18. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was enacted on the recommendation of the Committee appointed by the National Integration Council, whereby the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 was enacted the Parliament to impose, by law, reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India. 19. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act of 1967 was that pursuant to the acceptance by the Government of a unanimous recommendation of the Committee on National Integration and Regionalism appointed by the National Integration Council, the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, was enacted empowering the Parliament to impose, by law, reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India on the - (i) freedom of speech and expression; (ii) right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and (iii) right to form associations or unions. The object of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Bill was to make powers available for dealing with activities directed against the integrity and sovereignty of India. 20. The Resolution passed by our country had its genesis in the 4385th meeting of the Security Council of the United Nations, which adopted Resolution 1373 (2001) on 28.09.2001, under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations requiring all the States to take measures to combat international terrorism. 21. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act of 1967 as well as the genesis of the law clearly shows that there was a larger intention of the Indian Parliament to have proper mechanism in the form of an Act in the larger interests to protect our country from international terrorism and to ensure that the sovereignty and integrity of the country is jeopardized. 22. The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 was enacted to ensure that the Emblems and Names will be misused. Section 3 of the Act of 1950 reads as under:- "3. Prohibition of improper use of certain emblems and names.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no person shall, except in such cases and under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government, use, or continue to use, for the purpose of any trade, business, calling or profession, or in the title of any patent, or in any trademark or design, any name or emblem specified in the Schedule or any colourable imitation thereof without the previous permission of the Central Government or of such officer of Government as may be authorized in this behalf by the Central Government." Thus, the law does pertain to the map itself and basically is about the Emblems and Names, and the maps, and apparently, does have any direct bearing on the present set of facts and circumstances. 23. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 is a similar piece of legislation, which is enacted to protect the Indian National Flag from burning, trampling, defacing, disfiguring, destroying, defiling or mutilating or any contemptuous act towards the Indian National Flag or the Constitution of India. 24. There is no doubt that the National Flag, the Constitution and the National Map are the matters of great sanctity and any act of any individual whosoever - citizen or non-citizen - ought to cause any type of injury or any kind of negative imports towards these symbols of the country's honour, so as to maintain the sovereignty and integrity of the country. 25. However, in the present case, on a bare reading of the facts and the allegations, it is clear that the petitioners are Public/Banking Institutions, who have great commitments towards the nation and it is the case of the prosecution that these institutions have ever been involved in any kind of such activities, which have jeopardized the strength of the country's sovereignty and integrity, which could reduce the honour of our National Symbols. Thus, on the face of it, the offences, which have been found to be made out, are in fact applicable to the present set of facts and circumstances, as the purport of the Statement of Objects and Reasons alongwith the language of the Act, and the provisions so charged clearly point out that the purpose of promulgating such laws was quite different from what has been done. 26. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of the United States in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) decided on 21.06.1989 , in a case of flag desecration for burning the flag, was rendered with 5-4 majority in favour of a citizen of America, by laying down that if the purpose of the Act is attributable to the sanctity and sovereignty of the nation, then such allegations would amount to any kind of punishment. 27. Facts, in the nutshell, of the case of Texas v. Johnson (supra) were that one Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American Flag outside of the Convention Centre where the 1984 Republican National Convention was being held in Dallas, Texas. Johnson burned the Flag to protest the policies of the then President Ronald Reagan. He was arrested and charged with violating a Texas Statute that prevented the desecration of a venerated object, including the American Flag, if such action was likely to incite anger in others. A Texas Court tried and convicted Johnson. He appealed, arguing that his actions were "symbolic speech" protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Johnson's case. The issue involved in the said case was whether Flag burning constitutes "symbolic speech" protected by the aforesaid First Amendment. 28. The reasoning given by majority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of the United States in Texas v. Johnson (supra) read as under:- "The majority of the Court, according to Justice William Brennan, agreed with Johnson and held that flag burning constitutes a form of "symbolic speech" that is protected by the First Amendment. The majority noted that freedom of speech protects actions that society may find very offensive, but society's outrage alone is justification for suppressing free speech. In particular, the majority noted that the Texas law discriminated upon viewpoint, i.e., although the law punished actions, such as flag burning, that might arouse anger in others, it specifically exempted from prosecution actions that were respectful of venerated objects, e.g., burning and burying a worn-out flag. The majority said that the government could discriminate in this manner based solely upon viewpoint." 29. Justice Kennedy in Texas v. Johnson (supra), in concurrence with the opinion of Justice Brennan's opinion, wrote thus: "For we are presented with a clear and simple statute to be judged against a pure command of the Constitution. The outcome can be laid at no door but ours. The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result. And so great is our commitment to the process that, except in the rare case, we do pause to express distaste for the result, perhaps for fear of undermining a valued principle that dictates the decision. This is one of those rare cases. Though symbols often are what we ourselves make of them, the flag is constant in expressing beliefs Americans share, beliefs in law and peace and that freedom which sustains the human spirit. The case here today forces recognition of the costs to which those beliefs commit us. It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt." 30. Although, the precedent law of Texas v. Johnson (supra) has been taken into consideration by this Court in this order, despite the fact that neither the same is an authoritative or a binding precedent, nor has any direct bearing on the case in hand, however, the same has been considered being a facet of the judicial verdict passed in respect of the progressive society. This Court is also aware of the fact that there is much difference between the maturity level and social conditions, which were prevailing there, and the one prevailing in the present society. 31. Apparently, going by the mandate of the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch.Bhajan Lal and Ors.,1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335 and in light of the other precedent laws, on the face of it, the offences so charged are made out, nor the events and facts, which are there on record reflect so. The intention as well as the chain of events, which led to the alleged act clearly point out that at best, it would have been a bonafide mistake on the part of the institutions, which had resolved to publish the notebooks with the map of the country, which are erroneously printed and it is the case of the prosecution that such act was done with vengeance or with any kind of intention to come within the purview of the laws so expressed. 32. However, these allegations pertain to the pride of the nation as well as its sovereignty and integrity, but the present consideration is only made with the clear understanding that the same has been made on the basis of the factual matrix of this particular case alone. 33. In light of the aforesaid discussions, as also the fact that though this Court is very much reluctant in making interference in the cases pertaining to pride of the nation and its sovereignty and integrity, but since no such offence is at all made out against the present petitioners, therefore, on the factual matrix of this case alone, the present case warrants interference by this Court under its constrained jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 as there are extremely compelling circumstances for making such interference; as well as the precedent laws, referred to above, the present misc. petitions are allowed and the impugned order dated 16.10.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Revision Petition No.271/2014 and order dated 07.04.2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jodhpur in Criminal Regular Case No.927/2010 (in S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.189/2015); order dated 16.10.2014 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur in Criminal Revision No.270/2014 and order dated 07.04.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur in Cr. O. No.927/2010 (in S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No.2964/2014), are quashed and set aside, alongwith all the consequential proceedings pursuant thereto." 3. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is owner of a stationery shop and the allegation against him is that the disputed note book was found in his shop. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid precedent law and hence, the impugned order dated 7.4.2014 and all proceedings pursuant thereto deserve to be quashed and set aside ;