Issuance of notice to the accused, who has allegedly violated the directions issued under the Disaster Management (DM) Act, at least 30 days prior to launching of prosecution by the complainant on the alleged violation is mandatory in law, said the High Court of Karnataka.
Section 60 (b) of the DM Act, 2005, and Rule 3 of the Disaster Management (Notice of alleged offence) Rules, 2007, mandates that any person should issue notice on/of his intention to make a complaint, and that the notice should be delivered to the person against whom complaint is proposed to be made, the Court said.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna made these observations while quashing the case registered against Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar in 2021 for allegedly violating the guidelines issued under Section 51(b) of the DM Act during COVID-19 pandemic.
The case was registered as Mr. Shivakumar, who along with around 350 members of the Congress, had held a demonstration, against the rise of property tax, in Bengaluru city on January 4, 2021, in violation of the COVID-19 guidelines issued under the DM Act. The police had filed chargesheet against him after the investigation and a metropolitan magistrate court in the City on January 25 had taken cognisance of offence against him.
While analysing the provisions of the DM Act, the court pointed out that Section 60 (b) mandates that if cognisance is to be taken by a court for an offence punishable under Section 51 of the Act, a person who is arrayed as an accused should have been given a notice of not less than 30 days in the manner prescribed in the rules.
“The magistrate, prior to taking cognisance ought to have noticed the rigour of Section 60(b) as to whether a notice was issued to the accused in terms of Rule 3 Ostensibly, the mandate of issuing notice under the Act or the Rules is not followed by the complainant and it is not even noticed by the magistrate prior to taking of cognisance, and hence it is contrary to the law,” the court observed.
