<p>The high court has said that unless the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) (KOPD) Act, 1981, is applicable to a particular city and municipal area, initiation of proceedings under the Act is unsustainable under law.</p>.<p>Justice H P Sandesh said this while quashing the proceedings against three Congress workers of Muddebihal town in Vijayapura district.</p>.<p>Three workers from the Congress party filed the petition challenging the order of the JMFC court in Muddebihal, taking cognizance against them for the offences punishable under section 171 H of IPC and section 3 of the KOPD Act.</p>.<p>An election official deputed during the 2018 Assembly elections had registered the case alleging that the petitioners displayed stickers containing party symbol and flag without permission when the Congress candidate visited the tahsildar office for filing the nomination papers. </p>.<p>The court pointed out section 1 (2) (i) of the Act which states that the Act is applicable for cities under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 or under any other law, as on May 5, 1981.</p>.<p>These cities include Bengaluru, Mysuru, Hubballi-Dharwad, Mangaluru and Belagavi. As per section (1) (2) (ii), the state government may include any other area by notification. </p>.<p>The court noted that apart from including Kalaburagi in July 1991, the state government has not issued any other notification.</p>.<p>Section 171 H of IPC deals with illegal payments in connection with an election. The court also noted that in the case on hand there is no allegation with regard to illegal payments in the complaint. </p>.<p>“Having considered the allegation made in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet, it does not attract offence under Section 171H of IPC and so also Section 3 of the Act as there is no notification. First of all, complaint averments and charge sheet averments do not attract the offences invoked and apart from that, the above Act is not applicable to Muddebihal and without any notification for application of the Act, proceedings have been initiated,” the court said. </p>
<p>The high court has said that unless the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) (KOPD) Act, 1981, is applicable to a particular city and municipal area, initiation of proceedings under the Act is unsustainable under law.</p>.<p>Justice H P Sandesh said this while quashing the proceedings against three Congress workers of Muddebihal town in Vijayapura district.</p>.<p>Three workers from the Congress party filed the petition challenging the order of the JMFC court in Muddebihal, taking cognizance against them for the offences punishable under section 171 H of IPC and section 3 of the KOPD Act.</p>.<p>An election official deputed during the 2018 Assembly elections had registered the case alleging that the petitioners displayed stickers containing party symbol and flag without permission when the Congress candidate visited the tahsildar office for filing the nomination papers. </p>.<p>The court pointed out section 1 (2) (i) of the Act which states that the Act is applicable for cities under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 or under any other law, as on May 5, 1981.</p>.<p>These cities include Bengaluru, Mysuru, Hubballi-Dharwad, Mangaluru and Belagavi. As per section (1) (2) (ii), the state government may include any other area by notification. </p>.<p>The court noted that apart from including Kalaburagi in July 1991, the state government has not issued any other notification.</p>.<p>Section 171 H of IPC deals with illegal payments in connection with an election. The court also noted that in the case on hand there is no allegation with regard to illegal payments in the complaint. </p>.<p>“Having considered the allegation made in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet, it does not attract offence under Section 171H of IPC and so also Section 3 of the Act as there is no notification. First of all, complaint averments and charge sheet averments do not attract the offences invoked and apart from that, the above Act is not applicable to Muddebihal and without any notification for application of the Act, proceedings have been initiated,” the court said. </p>
