Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 743 (BOM)

Arun Tikekar v. Sanatan Sanstha

2009-06-25

A.S.OKA

body2009
JUDGMENT:. The submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned counsel appearing for the original complainant were heard on the last date. By this Criminal Application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code), a prayer is made for quashing a complaint filed by the 1st respondent against the applicants and the 2nd to 6th respondents alleging commission of offences under section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The learned Magistrate passed a detailed order on 07th November 2000 dismissing the complaint in exercise of power under section 203 of the said Code as against the accused no.1. The learned Magistrate passed another order by which the process was issued against accused nos.2 to 8 for the offences punishable under section 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code. The present applicants have been arraigned as accused nos.2 to 4. There was a revision application filed by the 1st applicant (2nd accused) for challenging the order of issue of process. There were separate revision applications filed by the 2nd and 3rd applicants (accused Nos.3 and 5) for challenging the order of issue of process. Another revision application was also filed by the 1st respondentcomplainant for challenging an order by which the complaint was dismissed as against the accused no.1. The revision applications were heard together and by a common judgment and order dated 14th August 2001, the revision applications preferred by the applicants herein were rejected.The learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision application filed by the 1st respondentcomplainant by directing that process shall be also issued against accused no.1 under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. With a view to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it will be necessary to refer to the averments made in the complaint filed by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent claims to be a Public Charitable Trust established with the object to educate people about the science of spirituality by organizing seminars, workshops etc. According to the case of the 1st respondent, they are publishing various publications such as daily _ Sanatan Prabhat_ , Goa and Sindhudurga edition, weekly _ Sanatan Prabhat_ , monthly _ Sanatan Prabhat_ etc. According to the case of the 1st respondent, they are publishing various publications such as daily _ Sanatan Prabhat_ , Goa and Sindhudurga edition, weekly _ Sanatan Prabhat_ , monthly _ Sanatan Prabhat_ etc. According to the case of the 1st respondent, thousands of seekers have faith in the 1st respondent as it is devoted to spiritual development of the seekers throughout the world irrespective of caste, creed and religion. It is stated that the 1st respondent has earned a high reputation in society in general and thousands of seekers in particulars. 4. In the complaint it is stated that the 1st accused at the relevant time was a Minister of Labour of the State Government and was Incharge/ Guardian Minister of district Sindhudurga. At the relevant time the 1st applicant (accused no.2) was the editor of a daily _ Loksatta_ and the 2nd and 3rd applicants were respectively the owners and printers of the said newspaper. The accused nos.5, 6 and 7 have been arraigned as accused in the capacity as editors of different newspapers and accused no.8 is the publisher of one of those newspapers. According to the 1st respondent, on 01st May 2000 a Platinum Jubilee function of famous Saint H.H.Bhau Masurkar of Sawantwadi in district Sindhudurga was celebrated in a theatre i.e Govind Natya Mandir at Sawantwadi. According to the 1st respondent, large number of followers of the 1st respondent voluntarily participated in the said celebration. It is alleged that the accused no.1 attended the said celebration briefly for about 5 to 10 minutes in the morning and left the site of the celebration. He reached a Government Rest House at Sawantwadi where he addressed the reporters and journalists. According to the 1st respondent the utterances of the 1st accused were reported by the various newspapers including the the newspaper _ Daily Loksatta_ . The news item appeared in the said newspaper of the applicants on 06th May 2000. The said news item has printed in the daily _ LokSatta_ . The title of the news item is to the effect that Mr.Dalvai (accused no. 1) has criticized the 1st respondent-complainant. The news item appeared in the said newspaper of the applicants on 06th May 2000. The said news item has printed in the daily _ LokSatta_ . The title of the news item is to the effect that Mr.Dalvai (accused no. 1) has criticized the 1st respondent-complainant. It is stated in the news item that the accused no.1 who was Minister of Labour and in-charge Minister of Sindhudurga district while addressing a gathering alleged that the 1st respondent was nothing but a branch of the Rashtriya Swayanseva Sangh and further stated that Mr.Nitin Gadkari, the leader of the opposition in Vidhan Parishad was connected with the establishment of the 1st respondent. The newspaper report further records that the accused no.1 was present in the celebration of Platinum Jubilee of Bhau Masurkar and he stated that institutions like the 1st respondent have been adversely affecting the nation and said institutions are encouraging extremists. In the complaint other news items published in newspapers other than daily Loksatta have been reproduced which are not relevant for the purposes of this application. 5. The allegation made in the complaint is that the accused no.1 made a defamatory statements intentionally to harm the reputation of the 1st respondent. The allegation in the complaint is that the applicants and other accused published the said defamatory statements of the 1st respondent in their respective newspapers knowingly or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the 1st respondent-complainant. It was contended that the said statements made by the accused no.1 which were published by the other accused were absolutely false and per se defamatory of the 1st respondent. The allegation is that the applicants and other accused published and circulated the said defamatory statements to lakhs of people in the society causing loss of reputation and resultantly irreparable loss. It is alleged that thousands of _ seekers_ practicing there individual spiritual practice under the guidance of the 1st respondent are perturbed and their faith in the 1st respondent is shaken. It is alleged that defamatory statements are made by the 1st accused and which were published and circulated by the applicants and the other accused. It is alleged that thousands of _ seekers_ practicing there individual spiritual practice under the guidance of the 1st respondent are perturbed and their faith in the 1st respondent is shaken. It is alleged that defamatory statements are made by the 1st accused and which were published and circulated by the applicants and the other accused. It is alleged that the statements published by the accused were false to their knowledge and such publication had lowered the reputation of the 1st respondent in the public estimation and caused damage to the goodwill and reputation of the 1st respondent. Therefore, it was alleged that the applicants and other accused have committed an offence under section 499 which is punishable under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants has invited my attention to the averments made in the complaint as well as the findings recorded by the Sessions Court. The senior counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that even the 1st respondent-complainant admitted that utterances which are published in the offending news item were in fact made by the 1st accused in a press conference at Rest House at Sawantwadi. He submitted that perusal of the verification statement of Dr.Nandini Durgesh Samant is very vague as well as cryptic and taking the said statement as true and correct, no case of commission of offence under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code has been made as against any of the applicants. He submitted that in fact in the verification statement no allegation has been made against the present applicants. He submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, on the basis of such verification statement, process could not have been issued against the applicants. He submitted that there is non application of mind on the part of the learned Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge. His submission is that the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are perverse. 7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the 2nd applicant is a limited company and the 3rd applicant is the name of the printing press of the 2nd applicant and the 3rd applicant is not a legal entity. His submission is that the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge are perverse. 7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the 2nd applicant is a limited company and the 3rd applicant is the name of the printing press of the 2nd applicant and the 3rd applicant is not a legal entity. He submitted that existence of mens rea is essential ingredient of the offence under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore the said offence cannot be alleged as against the 2nd and 3rd applicants in as much as the 2nd applicant is a limited company and 3rd applicant is the name of the press of the 2nd applicant-company. He pointed out that the 1st respondent has not proceeded against any of the officers of the 2nd applicant and only the 2nd applicant as a company has been arraigned as an accused. On this aspect he has relied upon certain decisions, a reference to which has been made in the subsequent part of this decision. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent invited my attention to sub-section 3 of section 397 of the said Code. He submitted that in substance this is a second revision application by the applicants and therefore considering the mandate of sub-section 3 of section 397, this application cannot be entertained. He submitted that at the stage of issuing process what is required to be seen is whether the averments made in the complaint make out a case to proceed against the accused. He submitted that as the news item published by the applicants was per-se defamatory, the learned Magistrate was justified in issuing process. He submitted that all the necessary ingredients of offence under section 499 have been pleaded and alleged against the applicants in the complaint. He submitted that the submission of the applicants that they have reproduced what is uttered by the 1st accused and that the said reproduction is a bonafide reproduction is nothing but the defence of the applicants which will have to be established at the time of trial and at this stage the same cannot be gone into. He submitted that while considering the challenge to order issuing process such defence cannot be considered by this Court. He submitted that the fact that the applicants published the offending news item is an admitted position. He submitted that while considering the challenge to order issuing process such defence cannot be considered by this Court. He submitted that the fact that the applicants published the offending news item is an admitted position. He invited my attention to assertions made in the complaint and in particular paragraph 5 of the complaint. He submitted that the said assertions make out a case for proceeding against the applicants for offence under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code as publication of the news item by the applicants is admitted and the news item is per se defamatory. He relied upon section 81 of the Indian Evidence Act and submitted that as the news item was per-se defamatory, nothing further was required to be done by the 1st respondent. He submitted that the company which publishes and prints the defamatory statements is per-se liable to be prosecuted in view of section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. He, therefore, submitted that at this stage no interference is called for and this is a case where trial should proceed. He has placed reliance on certain decisions which are referred to in the subsequent part of this judgment. 9. I have carefully considered submissions. The applicants have not disputed that the news item as quoted in paragraph 4 of the complaint was published on 06th May 2000 in daily Loksatta. It is not the case made out in the complaint by the 1st respondent-complainant that the statements of the accused no.1 have been wrongly or incorrectly quoted in the news item. It is not the case of the 1st respondent that the news item is an incorrect or misleading reproduction of what is said by the 1st accused minister and infact the case is that the accused no.1 indeed made utterances which are reproduced in the news item dated 06th May 2000. At this stage it will be necessary to refer to the averments made in paragraph 5 of the complaint in which the 1st respondent-complainant has asserted that the applicants published the defamatory statements in their newspaper knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm reputation of the complainant. The verification statement has been recorded in Marathi. The official translation of the verification statement has been annexed to the petition. The translated version of the verification statement reads thus: _ VERIFICATION I, Dr. The verification statement has been recorded in Marathi. The official translation of the verification statement has been annexed to the petition. The translated version of the verification statement reads thus: _ VERIFICATION I, Dr. Nandini Durgesh Samant, age 33 years, Occupation-Medical Profession, residing at-Fonda, Goa, State-Goa, state on solemn affirmation as under:- The Hon_ ble Minister Shri Hussain Dalwai was present at the Platinum Jubilee function of most revered Bhau Masurkar held on the date 1st May, 2000 at Sawantwadi. Thereafter, while speaking to the reporters at the Rest House, he made the statements which are derogatory to the Sanstha. The statements are- 1) The Sanatan Sanstha is a branch of Rashtriya Swayansevak Sangh 2) Ex-minister and B.J.P leader Shri Nitin Gadkari is connected with the foundation of the Sanstha 3)Shri Nitin Gadkari gave funds of the Public Works Department to the Sanstha Action will be taken against the Government Servants who are working for the Sanstha. The Government is making enquiry of the Sanstha. Handcuffing will be done after completion of the enquiry. The work of the Sanstha is turning back the wheels of the nation. The Sanstha is blowing its own trumpet at the function of most Revered Bhau Masurkar. The Sanstha has tried to take undue advantage of the platinum Jubilee function. _ 10. In the verification statement the representative of the 1st respondent complainant has reproduced what was stated by the accused no. 1 before the journalists at the rest house on 01st May 2000. Except for reproducing the utterances of the accused no.1, the authorised representative of the 1st respondent has not uttered a word about any other accused except accused no.1. Only the role of the 1st accused has been set out in the said statement. There is nothing stated against the applicants. There is one more aspect of the verification statement. There is no reference to any of the specific news items published in any of the newspapers including newspaper of the applicants. It is not even stated that the defamatory utterances of the 1st accused have been published in the newspaper of the applicants. There is nothing stated against the applicants in the verification statement. 11. In the verification statement, there is not even a reference to any of the applicants or to the role played by the applicants. It is not even stated that the defamatory utterances of the 1st accused have been published in the newspaper of the applicants. There is nothing stated against the applicants in the verification statement. 11. In the verification statement, there is not even a reference to any of the applicants or to the role played by the applicants. The learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants has relied upon the decision of this court in case of Amarnath Baijnath Gupta & Anr. Vs. M/s. Mohini Organics Pvt Ltd & Anr (2009 ALLMR (Cri) 184). He submitted that in the verification statement the complainant has to set out as to how the offence has been committed and as to how the accused are responsible for the offence. He submitted that unless all this is set out in the verification statement, process could not have been issued against the accused. 12. As far as verification statement is concerned, it will be necessary to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in case of Nimaljit Vs. State of West Bengal [ (1973) 3 SCC 753 ]. In paragraph 22, the Apex Court has held thus : _ "Under section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence, either on receiving a complaint or on a police report or an information otherwise received. Where a complaint is presented before him, he can under section 200 take cognizance of the offence made out therein and has then to examine the complaint and the witnesses. The object of such examination is to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case against the person accused of the offence in the complaint, and to prevent the issue of process on a complaint which is either false or vaxatious or intended only to harass such a person. Such examination is provided therefore to find out whether there is or not sufficient ground for proceeding. ... _ (Emphasis added) 13. It wil be also necessary to refer the decision of the Apex Court in case of Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr. Vs. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya [(2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 581)]. While dealing with the section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. The Apex Court has observed thus : _ "... ... _ (Emphasis added) 13. It wil be also necessary to refer the decision of the Apex Court in case of Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr. Vs. R.B.S. Channabasavaradhya [(2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 581)]. While dealing with the section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. The Apex Court has observed thus : _ "... In terms of section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complainant is bound to make statements on oath as to how the offence has been committed and how the accused persons are responsible therefor. In the event, ultimately, the prosecution is found to be frivolous or otherwise mala fide, the court may direct registration of case against the complainant for mala fide prosecution of the accused. The accused would also be entitled to file a suit for damages. The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are required to be construed from the aforementioned point of view._ (Emphasis added) 14. In the case of Amarnath (supra), this court after considering the law has observed as under : _ "22.On plain reading of section 200 of the said Code it appears that it is the obligation of the Magistrate to examine the complainant which means that the learned Magistrate is obliged to put questions to the complainant for eliciting the truth from him. The said provision enjoins a judicial duty to be performed by the Judicial Magistrate which requires an application of judicial mind. The said work of recording the statement cannot be done mechanically by simply filling cash details such as the date of cheque, name of the bank, date of intimation of dishonour of the cheque etc; in a format which is already kept ready. Generally, the complaints are drafted by the lawyers as per the instructions of the complainants. Thus, a complaint is the translated version or a formulated version made by the advocate on the instructions received from the complainant. Therefore, the examination of the complainant under section 200 by the learned Magistrate is very important. During the course of such examination the complaint tells the truth. In fact, the object of the learned Magistrate recording such statement is of eliciting the truth from the complainant. ..." 15. Therefore, the examination of the complainant under section 200 by the learned Magistrate is very important. During the course of such examination the complaint tells the truth. In fact, the object of the learned Magistrate recording such statement is of eliciting the truth from the complainant. ..." 15. As stated earlier, in the present case in the said statement of oath of the authorised representative of the first respondent-complainant recorded under section 200 of the said Code, there is not even a reference to the publication of the news item by the applicants. There is no reference to the role played by the applicants. In fact there is no specific reference to the applicants as well as their publication. As there is absolutely no reference made of the role played by the applicants, the learned Magistrate could not have issued process only on the basis of the averments made in the complaint. In the present case, the complaint is not on oath. It is merely signed by the authorised representative of the complainant as is clear from the xerox copy of the certified copy of the complaint annexed to this application. Therefore, the verification statment of the authorised representative of the first respondent complainant was the only statement on oath available on record of the complaint. In absence of even a reference to the news item published by the applicants and in absence of the reference to the role of applicants in the verification statement, the learned Magistrate could not have issued process against the applicants and hence impugned order as against the applicants is illegal. The learned counsel for the first respondent invited my attention to the decision of this court in case of Amarnath (spura) and submitted that as done by this court in the said case, an order of remand be passed to enable the learned Magistrate to record proper verification statement of the representative of the complainant. Perusal of the said decision of this court shows that the said course was adopted in the peculiar facts of the case before this court. This Court in the said case was dealing with a writ petition filed for challenging the order of issue of process in a complaint filed for offences under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. Perusal of the said decision of this court shows that the said course was adopted in the peculiar facts of the case before this court. This Court in the said case was dealing with a writ petition filed for challenging the order of issue of process in a complaint filed for offences under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. The submission made by the petitioners accused was that the verification statement of the complainant in the said case was recorded in a pre-conceived format and details such as the name of the complainant, particulars of the cheque etc have been merely incorporated therein. The specific case made out by the complainant before this Court in the said case was, as is apparent from paragraph 12 of the said decision, that in the city of Mumbai, the Magistrates who are dealing with the large number of complaints under section 138 of the said Act of 1881 have been following the practice of recording verification statements of the complaints only in a particular format. The specific grievance made was that the authorised representative of the complainant in the said case was willing to make a detailed statement, but the Magistrate recorded the verification statement in a form which was already kept ready. Considering the fact that the verification statement of the complainant in the said case was found to have been recorded in a particular format which was used by the learned Magistrate in all such complaints, this court adopted a peculiar course and remanded the complaint to the learned Magistrate for recording verification statement. Such a grievance has not been made by the first respondent in the present case. The verification statement in the present case has been recorded by the learned Magistrate in Marathi language in the form of narration. Therefore the said course of remanding the case cannot be followed in the facts of the present case. Moreover, it will be unjust to remand a complaint filed in the year 2000 after nine years to record a fresh verification statement. 16. As the order of issue of process as against the applicants has to be set aside only on the aforesaid ground, it is not necessary to consider the other submissions of rival parties. However, some legal submissions made will have to be considered. 16. As the order of issue of process as against the applicants has to be set aside only on the aforesaid ground, it is not necessary to consider the other submissions of rival parties. However, some legal submissions made will have to be considered. The submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants was that even according to the case of the first respondent-complainant, the utterances have been correctly reproduced in the news item in the newspaper of the applicants and therefore, this was a case where a publication of a true statement of the minister was made by the applicants in good faith. The learned counsel for the first respondent was justified in contending that this contention raised by the applicants is nothing but the defence of the applicants which cannot be considered at this stage. It must be stated that there is a merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the first respondent-complainant that the question whether the news item is published in a bonafide manner or not will have to be decided at the time of trial. However, no further discussion on this question is necessary as order of process is required to be set aside on the ground discussed earlier. 17. The third submission made by the learned senior counsel for the applicant was based on the decision of Calcutta High Court in case of Zee Telefilms Ltd Vs. M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd & Anr. (MANU/WB/0033/2001). Reliance was placed on paragraph 9 of the said decision which reads thus : _ 9. In the penal code also there is no provision which makes a company or an association of persons liable for prosecution for the offences of which mens rea is one of the essential ingredients. In this situation and in view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, it is apparent that if a statute defining the offence makes the mens rea or particular state of mind to be essential ingredients of such offence, a company or an association of person cannot be prosecuted for such offences though its officers or directors responsible for the management of the affairs of such company may be liable for prosecution. Similar view was expressed by this Court in an earlier decision in AIR 1949 CAL 689 where it has been held that bank is a Juridical person and not an actual person. Similar view was expressed by this Court in an earlier decision in AIR 1949 CAL 689 where it has been held that bank is a Juridical person and not an actual person. The bank is such that it cannot be said to have the mens rea required for the offence of cheating. The bank as such cannot be punished for cheating because it has no physical body. Similar view was reiterated in a recent decision of this Court in a comparatively recent decision of this Court in A.K.Khosla v. T.S.Venkatesan, 1991 (2) CRN 321._ Reliance was also placed on paragraph 13 which reads thus: _ 13.Of course two further decisions of the apex Court were cited on behalf of the opposite parties as to under what circumstances a criminal prosecution can be quashed or process issued at the initial stage can be interfered with in exercise of inherent power of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. In these circumstances of the case so far as the petitioner company is concerned I have absolutely no hesitation in my mind that if the company was incapable of committing an offence of which mens rea or a particular state of mind or intention is the essential ingredient of such offence, the process issued against the petitioner must be quashed through the case instituted against others may be maintainable and proceeded with in respect of which I am not called upon to express my opinion._ 18. As far as requirement of the presence of mens rea in the offence of defamation is concerned, it is not necessary to go to the decision of Calcutta High Court as there is a decision of this court in case of Vijay Vishwanath Kuvalekar Vs. Suresh Raghunathrao Kalkundrikar [2002 (2) Maharashtra Law Journal Page 90). This was a case where allegations of defamation were made on the basis of a report appearing in a daily newspaper. In paragraph 20 the learned Single Judge of this court has held thus : _ ...... In order to attract the offence of defamation under section 499 of Indian Penal Code mens rea is required i.e the publication must be made with an intention to harm or with knowledge or reasonable belief that such imputation would harm the reputation of a person against whom it was directed. In order to attract the offence of defamation under section 499 of Indian Penal Code mens rea is required i.e the publication must be made with an intention to harm or with knowledge or reasonable belief that such imputation would harm the reputation of a person against whom it was directed. ...._ (Emphasis added) This court has clearly held that to attract section 499, mens rea is required. However, as stated earlier, no further discussion is required on this aspect as only on the basis of first submission the applicants must succeed. 19. Lastly, it will be necessary to refer the contention raised by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent based on the provisions of sub section 3 of section 397 of the said code of 1973. The submission was that the bar created by sub section 3 of section 397 cannot be defeated by the applicants by taking recourse to section 482 of the Code of Criminal Code, 1973 as a remedy of filing revision has already been exhausted by the applicants and second revision application is not maintainable. The said contention cannot be accepted as the law laid down by the Apex Court is to the contrary. In the case of State Through Special Cell, New Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afshan Guru & Ors [(2003) (6) Supreme Court Cases 641], the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with this aspect. The Apex Court after considering the law on the subject observed that section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 starts with the words _ Nothing in this Code._ The Apex Court specifically held that the inherent jurisdiction of this court can be exercised even when there is a bar under section 397 or some other provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This objection raised by the first respondent is not at all tenable and the same deserves to be rejected. In the circumstances, the applicants must succeed. 20. Hence, I pass the following order : . Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). It is however, made clear that the benefit of this order will be available only to the applicant and the case against the other accused will proceed in accordance with law.