Judgment : The accused in C.C.No. 5357 of 1991 on the file of the Vth Metropolitsan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, has filed this petition under Sec.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to call for the records in the above case and to quash the same. 2. The respondent has filed the private complaint against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Sec.500 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations in it are briefly as follows: The accused is the Editor and Publisher of the “Madras Times”, having its office at No. 166, Peters Road, Madras. The complainant is a distinguished surgeon. He is running a hospital under the name and style “K.J. Hospital at 927, Poonamallee High Road, Madras-84”. One Mr. Sampath was admitted in K.J. Hospital on 26. 1990 after treatment he was discharged on 8. 1990. But again he was readmitted. After treatment he was discharged on 9. 1990 and on 29. 1990 he was readmitted, for diabetes mellitus, diabetic nephropathy, diabetic retinopathy, nephropathy and chronic renal failure requiring renal transplantation for his survival and he was treated for diabetic gangreno of his left foot and he was prepared for renal transplantation. His son and brother-in-law brought one Ravindran and three other persons stating that they were their relatives and that they wished to offer their kidney to Mr.Sampath. After conducting various tests on all these persons, Ravindran was identified as a suitable donor. On 13. 1991, the renal transplantation operation was conducted in K.J. Hospital, but unfortunately the said Ravindran, the donor passed away on 13. 1991 due to postoperative coagulation failure and cardio-respiratory arrest. A complaint was given to G-3 police station on 13. 1991 and a case was registered. Thereafter the recipient also died due to post-operative hepatorenal syndrome and multi-organ failure on 13. 1991. The accused chose to sensationalise this matter in his newspaper The Madras Times“issued dated 23. 1991. The defamatory statements made in the newspaper are extracted in the complaint. The matter published by the accused is widely published in Tamilnadu. Hence the complaint. 3. Thereafter the recipient also died due to post-operative hepatorenal syndrome and multi-organ failure on 13. 1991. The accused chose to sensationalise this matter in his newspaper The Madras Times“issued dated 23. 1991. The defamatory statements made in the newspaper are extracted in the complaint. The matter published by the accused is widely published in Tamilnadu. Hence the complaint. 3. Mr.A. Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, (1) there was no compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sec. 200 of Criminal Procedure Code; and (2) no third party was examined by the respondent before the learned Magistrate tooks cognisance of the offence and that unless there was some evidence to show that the reputation of the complainant was hurt by examination of third parties, the complaint is liable to be quashed since no offence under Sec. 499 of Indian Penal Code was made out. 4.Per contra, Mr.R. Shanmugha Sundaram, learned counsel for the respondent could submit that the provisions of Sec. 200 of Indian Penal Code were satisfied in this case and that the ingredients for an offence under Sec.499 of Indian Penal Code do not necessarily call for the examination of a third party to speak to such reputation of the complainant being hurt. 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made by either counsel. I shall first take up submission No. 1 which is in respect of Sec. 200 of Criminal Procedure Code. 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made by either counsel. I shall first take up submission No. 1 which is in respect of Sec. 200 of Criminal Procedure Code. On considering the submission, Sec. 200 of Criminal Procedure Code needs extraction and it reads as follows: “Examination of complainant: A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate: Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses- .(a) If a public servant acting or purporting to set in the discharge of his official duties or a court has made the complaint, or, .(b) If the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under Sec.192: Provided further if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under Sec.192 after examining the complainant and the witness, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them." [Italics supplied] In the instant case, after recording the statement given by the complainant after being sworn in, the learned Magistrate has endorsed and passed the order as follows: "Complainant present, sworn statement recorded. Case taken on file under Sec. 499 I.P.C. against accused. Issuesummons on payment of process. Complainant informed. Call on 7. 1991." 6. Mr.A. Natarajan, learned counsel would submit that the learned Magistrate did not ask the complainant as to whether any other witnesses were present and that the learned Magistrate must make a note that only complainant was present and no other witness was present and in the absence of making such a note it is to be implied that he did not ask any such question to the complainant, on this aspect. Mr. Natarajan, learned counsel would further submit that the words "and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing" in Sec. 200 of Criminal Procedure Code, would mean that he must make a note that only the complainant was present, in case the complainant alone was present. 7. In this regard he relied upon the decision in P.S. Ramaswami Nadar v. R. Viswanathan, 1957 Crl.L.J. 673. In it somasundaram, J. had occasion to consider Sec. 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned. 7. In this regard he relied upon the decision in P.S. Ramaswami Nadar v. R. Viswanathan, 1957 Crl.L.J. 673. In it somasundaram, J. had occasion to consider Sec. 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned. Judge has stated as follows: "The section is mandatory, and it is therefore obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to examine not only the complainant, but also the witnesses who are present in court. The Magistrate in future will do well in asking the complainant as soon as he is examined on oath whether any witnesses are present in court, and if witnesses were present, it is his duty to examine them or oath, but if no witnesses are present, he will do well to mention in the order itself that no witnesses were present according to the statement of the complainant or the advocate who appeared in court." Thus, the learned Judge had pointed out the advisability of the Magistrate taking cognizance of a private complaint to make such a note in the order itself. It is pertinent to rote that the learned Judge does n6t say that it also forms part of the mandatory requirement of Sec. 200 of Criminal Procedure Code. The plain language of Sec. 200 of Criminal Procedure Code, which I have extracted, would show that there was no such statutory mandatory obligation on the part of the learned Magistrate to make such endorsement that only the complainant was present and no other witnesses were present. The requirement of Sec. 200 of Criminal Procedure Code was only to examine the complainant and the witnesses, if any. 8. In Tarn Dutta v. State, A.I.R. 1975 Cal. 450, the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court had considered all the relevant rulings of Apex High Courts and has pointed out in paragraph 39 as follows: "There is a difference in our opinion, between desirability and a mandatory requirement, it is certainly desirable that a Magistrate after examining the complainant should enquire of the complainant or his lawyer if other witnesses are present in court. And if the complainant or his advocate says that no other witness is present that statement should be recorded by the Magistrate in his order-sheet, such recording obviously avoids the complications with which Somasundaram, J. was faced in P.S. Ramaswami Nadar v. Viswanathan, 1957 Crl.L.J. 673." With respect, I entirely agree with the view expressed by the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court. For the reasons stated above, I am unable to accept the submission made by Mr.A.Natarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate did not make a note that only the complainant was present and no other witness was present, which could amount to non-compliance of the requirements under Sec. 200 of Criminal Procedure Code. The clause occurring in Sec. 200 of Code "and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing" refers to the examination referred to supra, namely, the persons who are examined. In this case, the complainant alone was examined. As such, the record of the substance in this case by the learned Magistrate that complainant was present and sworn statement was recorded would satisfy the requirement under Sec. 200 of Criminal Procedure Code. I am not prepared to extend the meaning of the clause referred to as to making a record that no other witness was present. 9. Regarding the second submission, it is true that excepting the complainant, no other witness was examined before the learned Magistrate who took cognizance of the offence. To consider his submission, Sec.499 of Indian Penal Code need extraction and it reads as follows: “Defamation: Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation, will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.” The intention on the part of the accused is a paramount consideration for making the offence complete. If the other ingredients set out in Sec.499 of the Indian Penal Code are satisfied, and taking this view of the matter I am unable to accept the second submission made by Mr. Natarajan. If the other ingredients set out in Sec.499 of the Indian Penal Code are satisfied, and taking this view of the matter I am unable to accept the second submission made by Mr. Natarajan. Mr.R. Shanmughasundaram, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that in this case P.W. 1 was already examined in trial and awaiting cross-examination and by that time, this petition is filed. That is not a germane consideration to consider whether the complaint is to be quashed or not. 10. In view of the above, this petition fails and is dismissed.