Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2289 (DEL)

K. K. PANDA v. STATE (GOVT. NCT OF DELHI)

2006-12-08

BADAR DURREZ AHMED

body2006
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. ( 1 ) THESE two petitions are taken up together as they arise out of the same complaint under Sections 499/500 IPC. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are (Professor Vrajendra Raj Mehta) and ( Dr k. K. Panda) who, at the relevant point of time were the Vice-Chancellor and registrar of the University of Delhi. These petitions are directed against the order dated 22. 10. 2003 whereby the petitioners along with three other accused were ordered to be summoned under Sections 499/500/34 IPC. The petitioners in these two petitions are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the complaint. ( 3 ) THE complaint arises out of the newspaper item which appeared in the delhi Edition of the Hindustan Times on 10. 12. 1997 under the heading "rs 20 lakhs embezzled in DU". The complainant is one Professor S. N. Singh. The imputations which, according to the complainant, were defamatory are as under:-"irregularities amounting to over Rs 20 lakh have been detected in an audit enquiry conducted into the financial affairs of the Delhi University's law faculty under the Deanship of Prof. M. P. Singh (from Dec, 1994 to August 1997 ). Since last month, he is functioning as the director of the Indian Law institute. ""the audit enquiry's report, which was to be placed in the Executive Council (EC) meeting will also have a detrimental effect on the future of Prof. S. N. Singh, whose suspension was the reason behind the DUTA strike. ""prof. S. N. Singh, who had apparently functioned as convener of this year's admission committee also been accused in the report of not forwarding any information regarding the funds collected through this year's admissions exercise to the auditors. Another enquiry by retired high court judge Mr G. C. Jain is also pending against him. " ( 4 ) THE case of the complainant is that an inquiry report pertaining to the audit inquiry conducted into the financial affairs of the Law Faculty of Delhi university under the Deanship of Mr M. P. Singh was prepared and the same was in the possession of the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar. The said report was made public. " ( 4 ) THE case of the complainant is that an inquiry report pertaining to the audit inquiry conducted into the financial affairs of the Law Faculty of Delhi university under the Deanship of Mr M. P. Singh was prepared and the same was in the possession of the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar. The said report was made public. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the case of the complainant is that the inquiry report was in sole and exclusive possession of the petitioners and since details of the report with regard to the inquiry had been published in the newspaper then it must be assumed that the same was published because it must have been made public by the petitioners. The learned counsel further submits that since the inquiry report was in the exclusive possession of the petitioners there was a conspiracy whereby these accused persons colluded with other accused persons, namely, the publishers of the newspaper to have this article published in the newspaper. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that, first of all, the article published in the newspaper is not at all defamatory insofar as the complainant is concerned. It pertains to the inquiry report conducted into the financial affairs under the Deanship of another person, i. e. , Professor M. P. Singh. The remarks made in the newspaper's report with regard to Professor S. N. Singh are only comments which the newspapers have made on their own without any imputation of the present petitioners. He further submits that there is no material on record to even suggest that the inquiry report was in the exclusive possession of the petitioners and that it is they who had made it public. ( 6 ) AFTER having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that these aspects which were highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioners have not been examined by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate while issuing the order of summoning the present petitioners. From the material on record, it does not appear to be a case for summoning them. There is no material on record to suggest that the inquiry report which was sent to the petitioners was made public by them. From the material on record, it does not appear to be a case for summoning them. There is no material on record to suggest that the inquiry report which was sent to the petitioners was made public by them. There is also no material to suggest that there was any conspiracy on their part to malign the complainant's reputation. In any event, in my view, the newspaper report deals, inter alia, with the audit inquiry into the financial affairs of the Law Faculty of the Delhi University which was then under the Deanship of Mr M. P. Singh, who is not the complainant. The other comments that have been made in the newspaper, as extracted above, are merely opinions/comments of the persons who authored the news item. ( 7 ) IN these circumstances, I feel that the petitioners were improperly summoned. Accordingly, the summoning order, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, is set aside. This petition stands allowed.