Mohanlal’s alleged illegal possession of ivory can’t be viewed lightly, says court

Court rejects petition to withdraw prosecution against actor Mohanlal for alleged illegal possession of ivory, noting that it would be against the larger interest of the country. Prosecution failed to satisfy court that ownership certificate issued to actor was valid and reliable. Court refused to accept contention that withdrawal petition was filed in public interest.

The alleged illegal possession of ivory by actor Mohanlal, an offence under the Wildlife Protection Act, cannot be viewed lightly as the larger interest of the country is affected by the commission of a wildlife offence, according to a trial court.

Rejecting the petition initiated by the State government to withdraw the prosecution against the actor, Anju Cletus, Judicial First Class Magistrate-3, Perumbavoor, noted that the withdrawal of prosecution will be against the broader interest of the country if the ownership certificate for ivory granted to Mohanlal is found to be not in accordance with the law.

The court noted that the prosecution filed the withdrawal petition without revealing that the ownership certificate’s validity was challenged before the Kerala High Court. The fact that the petition was pending before the court was “wilfully or otherwise not disclosed in the withdrawal petition.” The prosecution also could not produce before the court, the gazette notification regarding the declaration of possession of the elephant tusks by Mohanlal and the ownership certificate issued to him. The prosecution could not satisfy the court that the ownership certificate issued to the actor was valid and reliable, the court said.

The judge observed that the petition was filed following the government’s action of granting the certificate to the actor. The petition was not filed after the prosecutor applied his/her free mind. While allowing the petition, the court has to satisfy itself that the prosecutor formulated an independent opinion before seeking consent to withdraw the prosecution. The court also has to be convinced that the public prosecutor’s function was not improperly exercised and that no attempt was made to interfere with the normal course of justice for illegitimate reasons or purposes. However, the circumstances in the case did not inspire confidence in the court to hold that the prosecutor properly applied his/her mind and freely exercised the discretion as specified by law, the judge noted.

On the prosecution’s contention that there had been an inordinate delay in the investigation and prosecution of the case, the court held only the State can be blamed for the delay as the investigation and prosecution were its prerogative.

The court refused to accept the contention that the withdrawal petition was filed in the public interest. The case didn’t involve an offence affecting public tranquillity, the settlement of which would be desirable to establish peace and harmony in the society. No member of the public was personally aggrieved by the nature of the offence allegedly committed by the accused. There were no circumstances in the case that warranted the withdrawal of the prosecution to ensure public justice, the judge observed.