Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Thiruvananthapuram, R. Rekha has read out the charges in the 2015 Assembly ruckus case.
The accused in the case are E.P. Jayarajan, V. Sivankutty, C.K. Sadasivan, and K. Kunhammad, all Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] lawmakers; K. Ajith of the Communist Party of India (CPI); and K.T. Jaleel, an Left Democratic Front (LDF) Independent. The suspects were LDF legislators in the Opposition at the time of the alleged offence.
The prosecution case is that the accused had unleashed pandemonium in the Assembly to hinder the then Finance Minister K.M. Mani from presenting the Budget. The incident occurred on March 13, 2015. Mani's alleged involvement in a bar bribery case had provoked the Opposition protest.
Earlier, Ms. Rekha had ordered the personal appearance of the accused. She granted Mr. Jayarajan exemption on health grounds. Still, the CJM insisted on his presence when the court considers the case again on September 26.
Framing charges is a necessary and unavoidable procedure in a criminal trial. Accordingly, Ms. Rekha briefed the accused about the legal jeopardy they faced. The CJM said the prosecution had charged the accused with trespassing on to the Speaker's rostrum with the shared intention of thwarting the Budget presentation.
According to the prosecution, the accused vandalised an emergency lamp, electronic panel board and computer monitor. They damaged the Speaker's chair and destroyed a standby microphone. The chaos resulted in an estimated loss of ₹2.2 lakh to the public exchequer.
Ms. Rekha said the prosecution had indicted the accused for violating the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, among other sections. They included trespass (447 Indian Penal Code), causing mischief (427 IPC) and common intention (34 IPC).
The CJM ordered the police to furnish the video recordings of the alleged offence to the accused. The LDF leaders pleaded not guilty.
Earlier, a magistrate court had turned down the LDF government's appeal to withdraw criminal charges in the case. The High Court later upheld the magistrate's decision, paving the way for the trial.
