JUDGMENT 1. -This misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 20.10.1987 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara in Cr. Complaint No. 843/87 (391/87) under section 500 IPC. 2. Mr. Kumbhat, learned counsel for the petitioner pointing out that by the impugned order the learned Magistrate has issued process against six persons, including the petitioner, contended that the allegations in the complaint or the evidence which has come in the statements of the complainant and his witnesses do not disclose that the petitioner has committed an offence under section 500 IPC. 3. On the other hand Mr. Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and the learned P.P. referring to the news item published in Jansatta of 7.10.1987 urged that the impugned order should not be quashed. 4. The short facts of the case are these. Dinesh Joshi, respondent filed a criminal complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara on 19.10.1987 alleging that a news item was published against him which has harmed his reputation, and that the accused were responsible for the same. On this complaint, statement of complainant Dinesh Joshi was recorded. He examined Pawan Kumar Rokadia and Krishan Kant as his witnesses. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 20.10.1987 passed the impugned order issuing process . against the petitioner and five others under section 500 IPC. 5. The question for consideration is, if on the material on record, process could be issued against the petitioner. 6. The allegations against the petitioner are contained at para No. 8 of the complaint which reads as follows : (8)" vfHk;qDr la[;k&7 ( tks Lo;a dks rFkkdfFkr dqynhi gR;kdkaM tkap la?k"kZ lfefr dk la;kstd crkrs gS ) us mDr feF;k vkjksiksa ij vk/kkfjr ,d Kkiu iz/kkuea=h dks Hkkjr ljdkj ds jkT; ljdkj ds jkT; ljdkj ds jkT; d`f"k ea=h Jh ;ksxsUnz edokuk ds ek/;e ls Hkstk vkSj ifjoknh ds fo:) bu vkjksiksa dkas tulRrk v[kckj fnukad 7-10-1997 esa izdkf'kr djk;kA " "A reading of the above para shows that the petitioner, as convenor of Kuldeep Murder Janch Sangharsh Samiti, sent a memorandum to the Prime Minister of India through Shri Yogendra Makwana and got in published in Jansatta on 7.10.1987". 7. 7. In his statement recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. Dinesh Joshi does not say a word about the fact that the petitioner had sent a memorandum to the Prime Minister through Yogendra Makwana or that he had got it published in Jansatta. In his statement at para No. 3, Dinesh Joshi only states that accused No. 7 (petitioner) is the convenor of the Sangharsh Samiti. Thus, the facts stated in para No. 8 of the complaint are not deposed by Dinesh Joshi in his statement. In the statements of Pawan Kumar Rokadia and Krishan Kant recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C. also, there is no evidence against the petitioner. 8. It may be that a news item was published in Jansatta of 7.10.1987 that Sangharsh Samiti had sent a memorandum, through Ghanshyam Brijwasi, Advocate, Convenor, containing defamatory statement against the respondents. However, on this news item, which was published on the basis of the news supplied by a reporter of Jansatta, process could not be issued against the petitioner. It is relevant to state that the editor and reporter of Jansatta have not been made accused in the case. They have not even been cited as witnesses in the case. A copy of the memorandum alleged to have been sent by the petitioner has also not been filed in the case. 9. There is thus absolutely no material against the petitioner that he had sent a memorandum containing defamatory statement against Shri Dinesh Joshi, complainant. The Apex Court in the case of Manmohan v. Shri Yash AIR 1984 SC 1161 has observed about the news item published in the news papers as follows: "A news-item without any further proof of what had actually happened, through witnesses, is of no value. It is at best a secondhand secondary evidence. It is well-known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publishes it. In this process the truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible". 10. As already stated, there is no evidence against the petitioner that he had sent or delivered the memorandum to the Prime Minister containing defamatory statement against Dinesh Joshi. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible". 10. As already stated, there is no evidence against the petitioner that he had sent or delivered the memorandum to the Prime Minister containing defamatory statement against Dinesh Joshi. The impugned order, which is based only on the news item published in Jansatta of 7.10.1987, against the petitioner, cannot be sustained. 11. Consequently, the petition succeeds. The impugned order qua the petitioner is hereby set aside.Petition allowed. *******