Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 144 (AP)

Ravi Prakash v. J. C. Diwakar Reddy

2010-02-26

SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

body2010
Judgment :- (1) This petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.168 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tadipatri relating to offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. (2) The 1st respondent is the complainant in the lower Court. He was the Minister for Panchayat Raj and Endowments in Government of Andhra Pradesh at the relevant point of time. He hails from Tadipatri Taluq. On 18.3.2006 one Rajendranath Reddy of Velamkur Village was murdered. On that day, the 1st respondent was at Ananthapur attending District Development Review meeting in his official capacity. It is alleged that when the media people asked for his comment on the said murder, the complainant expressed the same to be unfortunate and condemned the same and that the complainant was shocked, confused, fuzzled, perplexed and embarrassed to watch the news item telecast in T.V-9 News Channel when he watched the news reader saying that the complainant rebuked the media in filthy language when details about murder of T.D.P. leader were asked. It is further alleged that voice over artist stated that the T.D.P. leaders are alleging hands of J.C. Brothers behind the murder, that when media raised this with the complainant, he politely reacted in the first instance, that politeness did not stand some more time, that on confirmation about the media mikes and cameras are off, the complainant exhibited his real mind without knowing that camera of T.V-9 was still on. It is further alleged that words read by news reader and voice over artist of T.V-9 channel to the effect that the complainant displayed his original character and real character; and that it lowered the dignity of the complainant and defamed him in the public. It is further alleged that in T.V-9 news channel, there was scroll telecast to the effect that the complainant commented that the media are not eating food and are eating grass and that they have no eligibility to speak with those having stature of himself as wages of the media in the state are meagre; and that the complainant insulted the media. The complainant disputes truth of the said imputations. On those allegations, the complainant filed criminal case in the lower Court against the accused on the ground that the defamatory news item was telecast by T.V-9 news channel which is under control of the accused. The complainant disputes truth of the said imputations. On those allegations, the complainant filed criminal case in the lower Court against the accused on the ground that the defamatory news item was telecast by T.V-9 news channel which is under control of the accused. The accused is described as Chief Executive Officer of T.V-9. The question is whether Chief Executive Officer of a T.V-9 news channel can be prosecuted for defamation on the ground that false imputations were made against the complainant in that T.V news channel. (3) At the same time, it should be noted that the complainant is alleging criminal defamation against the accused, as distinguished from civil defamation. In order to constitute offence of defamation under criminal law, Section 499 IPC contemplates "intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm reputation of such person" on the part of the accused. In the entire complaint, the complainant/1st respondent did not allege that the accused who is Chief Executive Officer of T.V-9 channel telecast the news item or permitted to telecast the news item with such state of mind (Mens rea). Except as Chief Executive Officer of the T.V. news channel, the complainant did not allege any other connection for the accused with telecasting of this news item. It is not as if the accused was news reader or voice over artist or editor or news reporter in relation to this news item or the news bulletin in which this news item was telecast. It is not as if the accused was news reader or voice over artist or editor or news reporter in relation to this news item or the news bulletin in which this news item was telecast. In the absence of any such connection for the accused with this news item and in the absence of any such Mens rea or state of mind for the accused in relation to this news item, simply because the accused happened to be Chief Executive Officer or Proprietor or Partner of Managing Director of the T.V. News Channel, no criminal case can lie against him for offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.C. (4) In K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, AIR 1992 SC 2206 , the Supreme Court in respect of Print Media held that even Chief Editor of a news editor is not liable for prosecution if there is no allegation in the complaint involving the Chief Editor in commission of the crime and that for a Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence as against the Chief Editor, there must be positive averments in the complaint of knowledge of the objectionable character of the matter. The Supreme Court observed: "No person should be tried without a prima facie case." (5) In Dasari Narayana Rao v. R.D. Bhagvandas, 1986 Cri.LJ 888, this Court held that Chairman of the company publishing the news paper being neither the Printer nor the Editor nor Publisher of that news paper, could not be imputed with knowledge of contents in impugned articles published in that news paper and that therefore, proceedings against him are liable to be quashed. In the case on hand, there is no averment in the complaint that the alleged objectionable news item was telecast with knowledge of the accused of contents thereof. (6) In Prabhu Chawlaand v. A.U. Sheriff, 1995 Cri.LJ 1922, the Karnataka High Court held that Executive Editor, Managing Editor and Resident Editor cannot be prosecuted for offence of defamation when there are no allegations against them to the effect that they have any hand in selection of the alleged defamatory matter that was published in the news paper. (7) In 5. (7) In 5. Nihal Singh v, Arjan Das, 1983 Cri.LJ 777, the Delhi High Court held that Chairman of a company which owns and publishes a news paper can be held liable for publication of offending news item, only if it is shown that he was some how concerned with publication of the defamatory news item and that he cannot be asked to answer charge of defamation merely because he happened to be Chairman of the company owing the news paper. (8) As pointed out earlier, in the present case, there is no allegation that the accused had any participation in selection of the alleged defamatory news item in T.V-9 news channel. In the absence of any allegations of Mens rea and in the absence of any factual participation in telecasting the impugned news item, the accused cannot be said to have prima facie committed offence of defamation on the sole ground that he is Chief Executive Officer of T.V-9 news channel. Generally, the criminal law does not recognise vicarious liability on the part of the employer, unless there is any special and specific provision in any statute touching criminal liability. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that criminal proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. (9) Accordingly, this petition is allowed quashing proceedings in CC No.168 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tadipatri.