Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Hindu
The Hindu
National
Special Correspondent

Mohanlal’s ivory case: Petitioners lacked locus standi, says court

The petitions seeking to oppose the move to withdraw prosecution proceedings against actor Mohanlal in the illegal ivory possession case were rejected by a trial court recently on the grounds that the petitioners lacked locus standi to be heard.

Dismissing the petitions, Anju Cletus, Judicial First Class Magistrate 3, Perumbavoor, held that no person was enabled to file a complaint on an offence under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 just because he was a member of the public. A complaint under the Act can be made only by a person specially authorised for the purpose.

“The petitioners, who have no locus standi to file a complaint with respect to the commission of any offence under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, have no locus standi to be heard in a petition to withdraw the prosecution under the said Act,” the court held.

The court observed that there was no direct provision of the law enabling the petitioners to intervene in the petition filed under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for the withdrawal of prosecution.

The petitioners had argued that they being members of the public and the ones who had exposed laxity in the conduct of the investigation and the prosecution in the case had the right to be heard on the withdrawal petition filed by the prosecution.

The State has sought to withdraw prosecution against Mr. Mohanlal on the grounds that it would be a futile exercise and wastage of precious time of the court to continue the case.

The court will consider the application of the assistant public prosecutor seeking permission to withdraw the prosecution on May 6.

The Forest department had booked a case against Mr. Mohanlal after two pairs of ivory were found in his possession. The department case was that the actor did not possess valid permission for keeping the ivory while it was seized from him.

However, the State government contended that the actor was subsequently issued the certificate of ownership. The certificate, once granted, has retrospective effect to the date of original possession, it argued.

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.