1. All the aforesaid criminal petitions are taken up for analogous hearing and disposal, since these cases raise common questions of law based on similar set of facts. 2. The petitioner, by filing aforesaid criminal petitions under "section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has prayed for quashing the impugned criminal proceedings-in (i) Case No.CR.03/2010, pending in the court of learned Chief judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur, (ii) Case No. C.R. 168 of 2009, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, court No.5, West Tripura, Agartala, and (iii) Case No. CR.01 of 2010, pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bishalgari West Tripura. 3. I have heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The facts, leading to the filing of these criminal petitions, may be stated, in brief, are as follows : - The petitioner is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of a Bengali newspaper, namely, the 'Syandan Patrika', which is published from Agartala, Tripura. The complainants are the employees of the Rose Valley Chain Marketing System Private Limited, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at RGM/ 25/3010, Raghunath Pur, VIP Road, Kolkata. The company reportedly has 350 Branch Offices and 13 Regional Offices, in different places throughout India, including its Regional Office at Agartala. 5. The aforenoted complaint cases were filed in different courts below alleging, inter alia, that the accused-petitioner committed offence under sections 500, 501 and 502, IPC, by publishing, in all, five defamatory news items in the Syandan Patrika, published on 25.10.2009, 26.10.2009, 27.10.2009, 29.10.2009 and 31.10,2009, against M/s. Rose Valley Chain Marketing System (P.) Ltd., where the complainants-respondents were employed. 6. On receipt of the aforesaid complaints, learned trial court took cognizance of offences as aforesaid and issued process for appearance of the petitioner. Complaints in CR No. 168 of 2009, CR No.01 of 2010 and CR No.03 of 2010, were also filed in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.5, West Tripura, Agartala, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bishalgarh, West Tripura, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur respectively. Complaints in CR No. 168 of 2009, CR No.01 of 2010 and CR No.03 of 2010, were also filed in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.5, West Tripura, Agartala, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bishalgarh, West Tripura, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur respectively. The complaint cases were filed by the employees of the M/s. Rose Valley Marketing System (P.) Ltd., making similar allegations against the petitioner, for publication of the same five news items as indicated above. 7. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the criminal proceedings in all the aforesaid cases, i.e., CR. No.03 of 2010, CR No. 168 of 2009 and CR No.Ol of 2010, are incompetent and liable to be quashed, inasmuch as the cases are lot filed by persons aggrieved, in terms of section 199, Cr.PC and further, the complaints were filed with mala fide intention, for causing harassment to the accused-petitioner. 8. Learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner further submitted that even the facts stated in the complaints and the initial deposition of the witnesses recorded before issuance of process by the court, are taken to be true in its entirety, no offence whatsoever, is made out against the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the provisions of section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, submitted that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable' under Chapter XXI, IPC, relating to defamation', except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved. The complainants-respondents, in the instant petitions, are not, apparently, persons aggrieved and they are only employees of the company. The impugned news items allegedly defamed the company and its chairman, therefore, multiple complaints lodged by the complainants-respondents, as employees of the company, are not in accordance with law, since the complainants, who are employees, are neither aggrieved nor competent to represent the company to initiate a criminal complaint against the petitioner. Further, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the complainants-respondents have no locus standi to file criminal complaints, as they are neither defamed, nor named in the defamatory news items published in the newspaper. 10. It would be apposite to extract, hereinbelow the provisions of section 199. Cr.PC, for the purpose of convenience, which reads as under : "199. Prosecution for defamation. 10. It would be apposite to extract, hereinbelow the provisions of section 199. Cr.PC, for the purpose of convenience, which reads as under : "199. Prosecution for defamation. - (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence : Provided that where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs and manners, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the court, make a complaint on his or her behalf. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, when any offence falling under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed against a person who, at the time of such commission, is the President of India, the Vice-President of India, the Government of a State, the Administrator of a Union territory or a Minister of the Union or of a State or of a Union territory, or any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions a Court of Sessions may take cognizance of such offence, without the case being committed to it, upon a complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor. (3) Every complaint referred to in sub-section (2) shall set forth the, facts which constitute the offence alleged, the nature of such offence and such other particulars as are reasonably sufficient to give notice to the accused of the offence alleged to have been committed by him. (4) No complaint under sub-section (2) shall be made by the Public Prosecutor except with the previous sanction (a) of the State Government, in the case of a person who is or has been the Governor of that State or a Minister of that Government; (b) of the State Government, in the case of any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the State; (c) of the Central Government, in any other case. (5) No Court of Sessions shall take cognizance of an offence under subsection (2) unless the complaint is made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. (6) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, to make a complaint in respect of that offence before a Magistrate having jurisdiction or the power of such Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence upon such complaint." 11. Thus, on plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, it clearly transpires that prosecution for defamation can be initiated by a person aggrieved. Any person cannot be put in the category of 'person aggrieved' to lodge a complaint, alleging defamation of the company and its Director, if he is not actually the person named or aggrieved in terms of the provision of section 199, Cr.PC. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that a public interest litigation cannot be allowed to prosecute the petitioner in the alleged defarmation proceeding, when there is a legal bar. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel, in his elaborate arguments differentiated the relationship of the complainants with the persons aggrieved, vis-a-vis the alleged defamatory news items published in the newspaper against the Company and its Director. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that none of the complainants produced any leave or authority granted by the company the file the complaints against the petitioner on behalf of the company and, therefore, all the complaints filed on behalf of the company by the employees of the company are incompetent and liable to be quashed. 14. In reply to the above, Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel for the complainants-respondents submitted that the complainant has distinctly stated in the complaint petitions that he has been authorized to represent the company. Therefore, at this stage, there is no scope for the company to produce the authority letter and the resolution of the company to prove its credentials, therefore, the point, in issue, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not tenable, inasmuch as, the complainant is authorized to represent the company to file the complaints against the accused-petitioner. 15. Therefore, at this stage, there is no scope for the company to produce the authority letter and the resolution of the company to prove its credentials, therefore, the point, in issue, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not tenable, inasmuch as, the complainant is authorized to represent the company to file the complaints against the accused-petitioner. 15. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent further submitted that when an allegation is made against the staff/members of a company, the staff/members of the company are aggrieved persons, since aggrieved person is not confined to a person, who is directly injured. In support of his contention learned counsel for the complaints-respondents relying on the decisions G. Narasimhan and Ors. v. T.V. Chokkappa, AIR 1972 SC 2609 , contended that the provisions of section 199 do not spell out that the person aggrieved has to be the person defamed by the defamatory statement. In G. Narasimhan. (supra) it was held that it is impossible to have any definite idea as to its composition, the number of persons who attended, the ideas and the ideologies to which they subscribed, and whether all of them positively agreed to the resolution in question. The evidence simply was that the person presiding it read out the resolution and because no one got up to oppose it, it was taken as approved of by all. The conference clearly was not an identifiable or a definitive body so that all those who attended it could be said to be its constituents who, if the conference was defamed, would, in their turn, be said to be defamed. 16. As a matter of fact, a corporate personality is the creation of law. A corporation is an artificial person, which enjoys in law certain rights and duties. A corporation is distinguished by reference to different kinds of things, which the law selects for its personification. The individuals forming the corpus of the corporation are called its members. Therefore, the existence of juristic personality of corporations pro-supposes the existence of three conditions - (i) there must be a group or body of human beings associated for a certain purpose, (ii) there must be organs through which, the corporation functions, and (iii) the corporation is attributed will by legal fiction. A corporation is distinct from its individual members. Therefore, the existence of juristic personality of corporations pro-supposes the existence of three conditions - (i) there must be a group or body of human beings associated for a certain purpose, (ii) there must be organs through which, the corporation functions, and (iii) the corporation is attributed will by legal fiction. A corporation is distinct from its individual members. A corporation, being a legal personality, it can sue and also can be sued in its own name. The existence of a corporation does not come to an end with the death of its individual members, and therefore, has a perpetual existence. Unlike natural persons, a corporation can act only through its agents. Law provides procedure for winding up of a corporation. 17. A criminal complaint can be filed by a company, but it should be represented by a natural person. A company has the right to protect its fair name. It can sue for such defamatory remarks against it as are likely to damage its business or property, etc. A company has the right to seek damage, where a defamatory material published about it affects its business. This has been established in TVS Employees Federation v. TVS & Sons Ltd., (1996) 87 Comp Cas 37 (Mad.) and also in R. v. Broadcasting Standards Commission, JT (2001) 5 SC 398 equivalent AIR 2001 SC 2657, wherein it has been held that a defamation proceeding on behalf of the company can be filed by every director of the company. 18. It would be pertinent herein to look into the alleged defamatory news items, which read a follows : - 'SYANDAN PATRIKA 25th October, 2009 Bribed O.C. and Director of a Chit Fund Company Attach Photo Journalist in the court Premises. Syandan Representative, Agartala, 24th October, A photo-journalist on his professional duty is again attacked. This time the attack came in the court premises. The court police O/C extended his helping hand to the attackers. The attacked photo-journalist lodged a complaint with this matter in the West Police Station. Today it was the fixed date for Gautam Kundu, Director, Rose Valley Company Ltd. to attend the court in connection with a fraud case in which he is an accused. Buddha Gupta, Chief photographer of the Syandan Patriaka went to the court premises to take a picture of the accused Goutam Kundu. Today it was the fixed date for Gautam Kundu, Director, Rose Valley Company Ltd. to attend the court in connection with a fraud case in which he is an accused. Buddha Gupta, Chief photographer of the Syandan Patriaka went to the court premises to take a picture of the accused Goutam Kundu. When he tried to take a photo of Goutam Kundu in the front of the Lock-up, then Ashok Kumar Saha, a Rose Valley Director, obstructed him. He not only obstructed him in the discharge of his professional duty, he physically assaulted him. He forcibly snatched his identity care. The court police O/C himself came forward to help Ashok Saha in the matter of assaulting the photo-journalist. Ashok Saha and the police O/C wrested with Buddha Gupta and tried to snatch away his camera. He somehow extricated himself from their grip and save himself running away from the place. Buddha Gupta lodged a complaint with this matter in the(Agartala) West Police Station accusing Ashok Saha and the court police O/C. It should be mentioned here that although it if ustomary for the police to put a person, accused of fraud, in the Lock-up, it was not done in the case of the Chairman, Rose Valley. The police O/C gave him the opportunity to sit in his room and wait, in exchange of a large amount of money. Demand has been raised to prove this illegal role of this court police. Demand has been placed before the Chief Minister/Police Minister to investigate the matter. SYANDAN PATRIKA-26th October, 2009 Persecution of Journalist, Police Comes after Rose Valley Director. Syandan Representative, Agartala, 25th October : The police has not arrested Ashok Kumar Saha, Director Rose Valley Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Who is the Chief accused in the case of attack on Buddha Gupta, the Chief Photo Journalist of the Syandan Patrika, with in the court Premises. (Agartala) West Police Station Sources informed that investigation began in this matter. The investigation is being done by Ranjit Ghosh, S.I. of West Police Station. As it was a Sunday today, the investigation was partially hampered. Tomorrow, the police will go to the court premises and will record the statements of the witnesses. Because the police has not taken any action against the Chief accused Ashok Kumar Saha, Suspicion has arisen in different quarters. As it was a Sunday today, the investigation was partially hampered. Tomorrow, the police will go to the court premises and will record the statements of the witnesses. Because the police has not taken any action against the Chief accused Ashok Kumar Saha, Suspicion has arisen in different quarters. Amongst the different journalist groups intense reaction has been created as the Chief Photo journalist of Syandan Patrika has been assaulted in the court premises itself. The journalists of the safe are deeply concerned at the occurrence of assault on a journalist with in the court compound itself. Expressing their reaction on this event Tripura Photo Journalist Association has stated: When he went to discharge his Professional duty. Buddha Gupta, the Chief Photo Journalist of the Syandan Patrika and President of the Tripura Photo Journalist Association fell prey to physical assault in the court Compound. It occurred so when a picture was being taken of the Chairman of Rose Valley Finance Company. The company Director Asok Kumar Saha attacked him physically, snatched away his Identity Card and threatened him to see him again. The Association condemned this action. They demanded appropriate action also. In the statement it has been said: the association has noticed that for some time journalists are filling prey to attacks at various places in the state. The Association demanded assurance from the administration for the security of the journalists. The Association felt that if the journalists are so attacked, democracy itself would be the loser. The Development work of the land will be hampered. It need be mentioned that, the Chairman of the Rose Valley Company, Who has been accused in a case of fraud presented himself in the court today. When Buddha Gupta went to take his picture, he was physically attacked and threatened. Here, Agartala Press Club condemned the event of physical assault on Buddha Gupta, photo journalist of the Syandan Patrika when he was on his professional duty. The press club demanded an enquiry and appropriate action against the attaches. The Press club also condemned the events of harassing the journalists at various places. SYANDAN PATRIKA-27th October, 2009 Rose Valey Head Goutam Kundu Accused under Four IPC Rules-Police. Syandan Representative, Agartala-26th October : The police could not arrest Ashok Saha, Director of Rose Valley Chain Marketing system and accused in the case of attack on a journalist. The Press club also condemned the events of harassing the journalists at various places. SYANDAN PATRIKA-27th October, 2009 Rose Valey Head Goutam Kundu Accused under Four IPC Rules-Police. Syandan Representative, Agartala-26th October : The police could not arrest Ashok Saha, Director of Rose Valley Chain Marketing system and accused in the case of attack on a journalist. The Investigating Officer in the case called an officer of Rose Valley to the police station and questioned him. Tripura Journalists Union condemned the event of attack on Scnor Photo Journalist Buddha Gupta and demanded immediate arrest and severe punishment of Director Ashok Saha. In the court premises itself Buddha Gupta, the Chief Photo Journalist of the Syandan Patrika was unprecedentedly persecuted physically. This event of attack on a journalist in the court premises itself before the court police O/C is a blemish in the history of the state. The police started the investigation of the case and interrogated Chandan Chakraborti, an employee of Rose Valley Chain Marketing System Limited. The Investigating Officer S.I. Ranjit Ghosh called Sri Chakraborti, who had been a police officer once, to the police station to know the happenings of that day Chandan Babu was not ungrateful. As a grateful one he praised Rose Valley and said that the events did not so happen. Goutam Kundu sat in a chair in front of. The chair of the court O/C. And he and another Rose Valley employee who accompanied them stood by the side. Although Ashok Saha caught Buddha Gupta in a hug to stop him from taking a picture, like a real grateful person he said that he had seen no such thing, the court O/C did not try to stop him from taking a picture (he said). He claimed that Buddha Gupta hurriedly went out after taking the picture. "Why did Buddha Gupta went out hurriedly if nobody tried to obstruct him?" no enquiry about this has yet luguse. It created a sense of mystery in different quarters as the investigation began with the overment of the accused party. Some smell other things also. In a statement released from the office of the Director General of State Police it has been acknowledged that a case had been lodged against Rose Valley Chairman Goutam Kundu. The case lodged with Agartala West Police Station is numbered 172/09. Goutam Kundu has been accused under secton 379/409/427/34 of the IPC. Some smell other things also. In a statement released from the office of the Director General of State Police it has been acknowledged that a case had been lodged against Rose Valley Chairman Goutam Kundu. The case lodged with Agartala West Police Station is numbered 172/09. Goutam Kundu has been accused under secton 379/409/427/34 of the IPC. In the governmental statement it has also been said that Goutam Kundu is in interim bail in this case. Bail was granted by the court. The number of the Press Release issued from the Police Director General is 1558-62/SP(PC)/09 dated 26th October, 2009. Here, Buddha Gupta, Senior photo journalist of the Syandan Patrika and Asstt. Secretary of Tripura Journalists Union was organization Rose Valley led the whole affair, tried to snatch Sri Gupta's camera and physically assault him. Tripura Journalist Union Condemned the matter and demanded punishment for the guilty. The Union Secretary in a Statement urged the State Government to take necessary steps to stop attack on the journalists and photo journalists in the way. SYANDAN PATRlKA-29th October, 2009 Investigation of Assault on Journalist Stops on Job of Wife's Sister. Syandan Representative, Agartala 28th October. The accused who assaulted the senior photo journalist of Syandan Patrika in the court compound itself, have not been arrested yet. About this case a section of the Police mysteriously buried the truth and submitted a false report to. the Police Head Quarters. In this case a Police Station stage Officer has bluffed Pranay Sahay, the Director General of Police. Although he has been bluffed by a Police Station Officer. The D.G. is still in deep sleep. The case of attack on journalist Buddha Gupta has hot been investigated by stage Officer and stopped investigation at the initial stage. Now arrangement are final to burry the case. The heimous act has been done by a Police Station stage Officer keeping all the superior officers including the Director General in their support. Accusations have been raised to the effect that there is deep mystery behind this. Several Laks of Rupees have been earned through the office of the Director General. This officer got a job for his wife's sister in the same non-govt. organization. Then this was done by throwing this organization in a trap in another case. Now that the organization fill in this case the officer got another chance. Several Laks of Rupees have been earned through the office of the Director General. This officer got a job for his wife's sister in the same non-govt. organization. Then this was done by throwing this organization in a trap in another case. Now that the organization fill in this case the officer got another chance. The case of assaulting a journalist got buries. Here Rajib Bhavan has threatened to launch intense movement if the attacker on journalist Buddha Gupta, Rose Valley Director Ashok Saha is not immediately taken into custody. A press release from the Rajib Bhavan stated on 24th October last the Chief Photo journalist of the Syandan Patrika went to the court Premises in connection with his professional duty. There he was physically assaulted by Ashok Kumar Saha Director of Rose Valley Finance (P.) Ltd. Company. Such attack on the fourth pillar of democracy by an executive of an organization which is proud of its strength of wealth is condemnable Rajib Bhavan is aggrieved and is sympathetic to the assaulted journalist and the authority of the paper. Rajib Bhavan has urged the Police Administration of the State to arrest the guilty immediately. Mukti Bhawmik, President of Rajib Bhavan expressed deep concern on the matter and urged the administration to arrest the guilty and put them behind bars., SYANDAN PATRIKA-31st October, 2009 Rose Valley Possess No. SEBI Permission Depositors in State Concerned. Special Representative, Agartala, 30th October: An organization named Rose Valley Real Estate has been selling dreams to the people in Tripura, for ten years luring them with the ideas of giving them land or high interest collecting money, within the knowledge of the State Government and without the permission of SEBI. The company was established on 3rd May 1999 in the name of Rose Valley Real Estate Construction Limited under Companies Act, registeringit from Registrar of Companies, OC (Kolkata), Nizam Palace, 2nd S.S.O. Building 234/4, Second Floor, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-20. The registration Number is 089311. It is stated there the company is limited to share holders. Its authorized capital is rupees ten crores, paid up capital is Rs.26,10,000. That the company is not in the schedule has been shown in the website : www. mca-qov.in of the Ministry of Company affairs. It stated report about the annual meeting of the company share holders. That AGM was held on 29.12.2008. Its authorized capital is rupees ten crores, paid up capital is Rs.26,10,000. That the company is not in the schedule has been shown in the website : www. mca-qov.in of the Ministry of Company affairs. It stated report about the annual meeting of the company share holders. That AGM was held on 29.12.2008. According to the proclaimed Rules of the Government of India no Company can put shares in the market to collect capital without the permission of the security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). Yet Rose Valley Real Estates Construction Limited has been collecting crores of rupees from the depositors in the State giving them dreams of plots of land without the permission of SEBI. Although they say about shareholders meeting, no depositor has even known anything about such meetings. Without SEBI'S permission many companies registered under company's Act, like Sanchayani, Sinchan, NICO-UCO Finance, Seven Sisters. Finance etc gave the lure of high interest rates, collected crores of rupees and then ran away. As they had no SEBI permission, the center Government also could not do stop their fraud. Cases of fraud are against them all. But the depositors did not get their money back. Kajal Kundu of Rose Valley collected several crores of rupees from Durgapur Industrial area with the bait of high interest rate and left the place. For that he had to liven in prison for several times. Then he came and began the trade of selling dreams. As the internal state of affairs of Rose Valley have been discovered, they are is an uncomfortable situation. As them promised they would not be able to return the money of hundreds of thousands depositors on tune. They have not been able to return the maturity money of many depositor. News have been published about this with data. Many depositors assembled before the Agartala of Rose Valley after reading the news and demanded to know when they would get their maturity money. I people are demanding their money now. The employees are bewildered to pacify than. It was clearly stated in the report about Rose Valley that for them it is impossible return the maturity money. The reason is that they collected money promising high interest under different schemes. They spent the money diverting them to other channels. A part of the money has been spent in Rose Valley Park and another part in Rose Valley Housing. The reason is that they collected money promising high interest under different schemes. They spent the money diverting them to other channels. A part of the money has been spent in Rose Valley Park and another part in Rose Valley Housing. That is not all, with the money that they collected from the people They constructed a beautiful officer for them beside the Rabmdra Bhavan. Many lakhs of rupees have been spent to construct building People may be astonished to learn that this building is illegal It has not been constructed following the Building Rules of Agartala Municipality. They did not take permission of the Municipality to built this without permission they constructed this large building. Kiran Gitya the Chief Executive Officer of the Municipality informed that they built the building without permission. This house and several other houses in the capital has been declared illegal by the Agartala Municipal Council. They did not only declared them so, they put not also before these houses. Within the Municipal area one needs the permission of the authority to construct a tinshed and here a 6/7 storey building was constructed near the Municipal Council. It has easily be guessed how much political and money power is needed for this. The State Government in this effort 1 save this house which has been built illegally and without any permission gave them an opportunity by giving them a list of 40 organisations and asking them to get their plan approved by them. But no outside organization dared to take the risk. This created a strom in the Legislative Assembly too. Now the Municipal Council is ready to di the house. The question is not here. The question is, why the Rose valley authority which collected money from the public, are not able to return the maturity money of the depositors. It is not enough if they pay ten lakhs people in a hundred. And why should others obey this? If they did not divert the money they could easily return the money. Rose Valley claims that theirs is a chain marketing organization, their full name is Rose Valley Chain Marketing System Limited. Their Head Office is at RGM, 25/3010, VIP Road, Raghunathpur, Kolkata-70059. And why should others obey this? If they did not divert the money they could easily return the money. Rose Valley claims that theirs is a chain marketing organization, their full name is Rose Valley Chain Marketing System Limited. Their Head Office is at RGM, 25/3010, VIP Road, Raghunathpur, Kolkata-70059. In their application form it is stated that they are Corporate Agent of Life Insurance Corporation of India and United India Insurance Company Ltd. In this case they said or stated in their printed form that their licence number are 883899 and 934779 respectively. In their business of collecting money from the people and give them plots of land they incurred severe loss. For this they floated another company. Its name is Rose Valley Real Estate and construction Ltd. They claim that it has Government Registration and the number is 21-89311. They run their real estate business under Ashirbad Scheme-A and Ashirbad Scheme-B. They have a lot of conditions. They have incurred heavy loss in this business also. The big example in this matter is their housing scheme. The houses they built on Agartala-Sabroom National Highway. Opposite Bardwali High School remain unsold. Buyers are unwilling to go there. The Rose Valley authorities are in a tight corner. They are in a tight corner with their Park which they built spending crores. Now many people do not want to go there. The; whole day it remains without any visitor. Kundu Babus are sitting with their hands on their heads. Have they spent here their own money or have they taken Bank loans? It the land of the water park the land of Rose Valley? According to Rose Valley advertisements, the lot of a million people is involved with their organization. That is to say that they have arranged secure income for ten lakhs of people through Rose Valley. If that is so, it is very good. Should not they be rewarded? But how can that be? Cases against them are pending in the court. Who knows that more cases will not come? As beatings on a dead body depositors are crowding to get their maturity value money. They can neither pay them nor give satisfactory answers. Only future will be able to say whether they will be able to answer or pay maturity money. At this moment they have no money to pay. Who knows that more cases will not come? As beatings on a dead body depositors are crowding to get their maturity value money. They can neither pay them nor give satisfactory answers. Only future will be able to say whether they will be able to answer or pay maturity money. At this moment they have no money to pay. The money that collected, they spent in other projects outside Tripura. The last addition is that entrance into the market of electronics media. At this moment in Tripura there are about 37 non-banking organizations. They are also collecting money in the name of one scheme and investing in other schemes. At least available data so revcd. There are some companies which are marketing various products. It is not known if Rose Valley is also doing this. It is now known if they can do so. They main business of Rose Valley is collecting in investing money at their whim. The Income-tax Department is watching them. It would not be a wonder if the Income Tax Department comes upon them anytime. At the beginning of this report mention has been made about a police officer. He said that in the next year Rose Valley will have to pay about 300 crores as maturity payment, then there will come real crisis. 2010 has yet not come. There are two months to go. But Oven now their offices are crowded with people demanding maturity payment. Whenever a case is lodged. Rose Valley authorities say that it about Chain they have nothing to do. Then who will do? The responsibility lies with the company! They cannot shake off that responsibility under any circumstance at least not in the court of law. Next time will be published a report with data." On careful perusal of the above defamatory news item it appears that none of the complainants is named in the alleged-defamatory news item. 19. Now, the question, which arises for consideration is whether with the attendant embargo imposed by section 199 of the Cr.PC, can a criminal complaint for defamation on behalf of a company be filed, by any and every individual employee of the company or any or every shareholders of the company. 20. 19. Now, the question, which arises for consideration is whether with the attendant embargo imposed by section 199 of the Cr.PC, can a criminal complaint for defamation on behalf of a company be filed, by any and every individual employee of the company or any or every shareholders of the company. 20. It is well settled that under section 291 of the Companies Act, except where express provision is made that the powers of a company in respect of a particular matter are to be exercised by the company in general meeting - in all other cases the Board of Directors are entitled to exercise all its powers. Section 291 of the Companies Act reads as follows : "291. General powers of Board. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Board of Directors of a company shall be entitled to exercise all such powers, and to do all such acts and things, as the company is authorised to exercise and do : Provided that the Board shall not exercise any power or do any act or thing which is directed or required, whether by this or any other Act or by the memorandum or articles of the company or otherwise, to be exercised or done by the company in general meeting : Provided further that in exercising any such power or doing any such act or thing, the Board shall be subject to the provisions contained in that behalf in this or any other Act, or in the memorandum or articles of the company, or in any regulations not inconsistent therewith and duly made thereunder, including regulations made by the company in general meeting. (2) No regulation made by the company in general meeting shall invalidate any prior act of the Board which would have been valid if that regulation had not been made." 21. The provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and particularly sections 14, 26, 28; Schedule I, Table A and section 291 are very clear. It is well-settled that under section 291 of the Companies Act except where express provision is made that the powers of a company in respect of a particular matter are to be exercised by the company in general meeting, in all other cases the Board of Directors are entitled to exercise all its powers. It is well-settled that under section 291 of the Companies Act except where express provision is made that the powers of a company in respect of a particular matter are to be exercised by the company in general meeting, in all other cases the Board of Directors are entitled to exercise all its powers. Individual Directors have such powers only as are vested in them by the memorandum and articles. It is true that ordinarily the court will not unsuit a person on account of technicalities. However, the question of authority to institute a suit on behalf of a company is not a technical matter. It has far-reaching effects. It often affects the policy and finances of the company. Thus, unless a power to institute a suit is specifically conferred on a particular Director, he has no authority to institute a suit on behalf of the company. Needless to say such a power can be conferred by the Board of Directors only by passing a resolution in that regard.' Mis. Nibro Ltd. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1991 Del. 25 . 22. In Al-Amin Seatrans Ltd. v. Owners of and Party Interested in Vessel MV "Loyal Bird", AIR 1995 Cal. 169 , it has been held that any proceeding or suit on behalf of a company not so authorized is liable to be dismissed. A company can institute criminal proceedings through an officer duly authorized by a Board resolution of the company. In C.B.S. Gramaphone Records and Tapes (India) Ltd. v. P.A. Noorudecn, (1992) 73 Comp Cas 494 (Ker.) it was held that a proceeding under section 142 of the NI Act, 1881 for the dishonour of the cheque can be filed by person authorized in this regard by a resolution of the Board of Directors of the company. 23. In terms of the above analysis the answer is emphatic No. The provisions of the Companies Act, 1955, made it abundantly clear that a company can sue and be sued by in its own name. Therefore, unless a perspn is the Director of the Company or is duly authorized by the company, in accordance with law, he would not have the right to initiate a complaint on behalf of the company. 24. Therefore, unless a perspn is the Director of the Company or is duly authorized by the company, in accordance with law, he would not have the right to initiate a complaint on behalf of the company. 24. Now question, arises for consideration is, whether a company can authorize natural persons or its Directors orally or verbally to lodge a criminal complaint for defamation against it or its individual functionary, for some defamatory remarks/news item published in the newspaper? 25. On close look into the provisions of section 199, Cr.PC reveals that for commission of offence of defamation against individual, complaints by several persons is not contemplated in terms of section 199, Cr.PC. The person aggrieved only can lodge a complaint. There cannot be multiple complaints entailing multiple trials, for such offence of defamation committed against an individual. No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. As a matter of fact, lodging of several complaints, for alleged commission of offence of defamation of an individual Director of a company, for publication of defamatory news items in the newspaper, vis-a-vis, several trials and several convictions against one individual accused for the same offence is not permissible in law. If a person is found to have committed offence of publishing defamatory news items against an individual, he can be prosecuted and punished only once at the instance of the person aggrieved. Therefore, even if multiple complaints are lodged in several locations, an accused cannot be punished in all such cases, when the person defamed by the news item is a single individual. 26. Homen Borgohain and Ors. v. The Brahmaputra Valley Regiional Handloom Weavers' Co-operative Society Ltd., 1995 Crl. LJ 2357, the learned court observed as follows : "15. Apparently and collection of persons may be covered by this explanation. But that collection of persons must be identifiable so that it can be said that this group of particular people has been defamed, as distinguished from the rest of the community. There is no dispute that a Co-operative Society doing business in certain way may bring an action for defamation in respect of the publication of defamatory news, item which effects its business reputation. There is no dispute that a Co-operative Society doing business in certain way may bring an action for defamation in respect of the publication of defamatory news, item which effects its business reputation. But a Society/Company cannot be said to be defamed, as to allegation which would be actionable at the suit, in case of an individual; but which would not be defamatory of a Society/Company, would not be actionable, in a defamation case. If imputation is found direct, the procedure followed is that, the Board of Directors may pass resolution to that effect, and can entrust any person of its choice by resolution to cause the action in Court of law. In such a situation the point would arise, whether the Society/Company is the actual aggrieved person in the case to establish that either it has suffered special damage or that the words are likely to cause not only humiliation but also pecuniary damage. Obviously to ascertain the maintainability of the complaint the locus standi of the complainant has to be decided in its initial stage. The question of maintainability on the ground of applicability of section 199(1), Cr.PC may arise before the court on an application to drop the proceeding. At that preliminary stage the trial court has to decide whether the proceeding is liable to be dropped as the complainant is not the aggrieved person under section 500, IPC." 27. Section 199, Cr.PC clearly provides an exception to the general rule that any person can approach the court and initiate a proceeding against such person, who has committed such offence. The person, who has initiated the complaint, should be someone who has grievance, recognized by law to be a legal grievance, and, it should not be any fanciful or sentimental grievance. The intention of the Legislature in placing restriction on the persons, who can make a complaint for the offence of defamation, revolves round the reason that it is not an offence committed against the society as a whole, but it is an offence against an individual. Any person, who has directly or indirectly suffers in his own reputation, by the defamation complained, can move the court and file a complaint. In this regard, the relevant extracts of the decision Prabhu Chawla and Ors. Any person, who has directly or indirectly suffers in his own reputation, by the defamation complained, can move the court and file a complaint. In this regard, the relevant extracts of the decision Prabhu Chawla and Ors. v. Shivnath Soni and Ann, 1988 WLN UC 398 reads as follows : "13.....................The intention of the Legislature in placing restriction on the persons who can make a complaint for the offence of defamation is that defamation is not an offence committed against the society as a whole but it is an offence in respect of individual only and any person who has directly or indirectly suffered in his own reputation by the defamation complained can move the court. It is with a view to narrow down the circle of persons, who can proceed to launch a prosecution for defamation that only an aggrieved person is allowed to file a complaint. The reputation of the petitioner should be directly or indirectly affected in order to make him a person aggrieved. In this case the complainants reputation is not linked with that of the persons upon whom comments have been made in the article which is said to be defamatory. The fact that section 199, Cr.PC does not say that a complaint is to be made by the person defamed but says that some person aggrieved may make a complaint, shows that it is not restricted to the person defamed alone to make a complaint. A person other than the person defamed can make a complaint but he has to be a person who is aggrieved and unless it is shown that the non-petitioner has suffered in any manner on.account of the alleged defamation of some other persons, he cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. Mere injured feelings cannot give a ground for setting the law in motion for proceeding against the accused persons for defamation. In this case, it cannot be said that the complainant is in any manner affected by the loss of reputation of the persons alleged to be defamed. In my view the complaint made by the non-petitioner cannot bo said to be an aggrieved person by a complaint and the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on basis of this complaint deserves to be quashed." 28. It would be pertinent to refer herein the decision reported in Vishwa Nath v. Shambhu Nath Pandeya, AIR 1995 Crl. In my view the complaint made by the non-petitioner cannot bo said to be an aggrieved person by a complaint and the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on basis of this complaint deserves to be quashed." 28. It would be pertinent to refer herein the decision reported in Vishwa Nath v. Shambhu Nath Pandeya, AIR 1995 Crl. LJ 277, wherein it has been observed as follows : "The general rule is that complaint can be filed by anybody whether he is an aggrieved person or not. Section 199, of the Cr.PC lays down an exception to the said rule. Under section 199, Cr.PC only an aggrieved person can move a Magistrate in case of defamation. Section 199(1) reads as under : 199. Prosecution for defamation. - (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. This is subject to two exceptions mentioned in the proviso to sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 199, Cr.PC. However, the said two exceptions do not come into play in the present case. 14. Section 199, Cr.PC is mandatory, so that if a Magistrate was to take cognizance of offence of defamation on a complaint filed by one who is not an aggrieved person, the trial and conviction of an accused in such a case by the Magistrate could be void and illegal - See AIR 1972 SC 2609 : 1973 Crl. LJ 52. Section 199, creates a bar which has to be removed before cognizance can be taken." 29. In K. Anbazhagan v. The Superintendent of Police and Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 767 hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows : "It is a well established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justifiable and based upon adequate evidence does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or 'the complainant." This decision was reiterated in State ofHaryana and Ors. v. Bhajan lal and Ors., MANU/SC/011511992:1992 Crl. LJ 527." 30. In Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. and Ors. v. Ananta Saha and Ors., (2011) 5 SCC 142 it was held that : "43. Even in criminal law a complaint cannot be, "thrown overboard on some unsubstantiated plea of mala fides". v. Bhajan lal and Ors., MANU/SC/011511992:1992 Crl. LJ 527." 30. In Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. and Ors. v. Ananta Saha and Ors., (2011) 5 SCC 142 it was held that : "43. Even in criminal law a complaint cannot be, "thrown overboard on some unsubstantiated plea of mala fides". That "a criminal prosecution, if otherwise, justifiable and based upon adequate evidence does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or the complainant." 31. In Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan lal and Ors. (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 the Apex Court obseryed as follows : "105. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under article 226 or the inherent powers Under section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face valve and accepted in their entirety do not prim a facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the FIR and other materials, if any/ accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and Inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 32. It is necessary for the complainants to have the previous sanction of the appropriate administrative authority of the company, for launching prosecution against the accused in a defamation case. The authorization on behalf of the complainant by the company is necessary since the court cannot launch prosecution in a defamation case unless it is filed by the person aggrieved, in view of the provision of section 199, Cr.PC. 33. Section 199 of Cr.PC is intended to afford a reasonable protection to the person making defamatory statement, who in the course of strict and impartial discharge of his duties may have offended persons and created enemies. The provision ensures protection from frivolous, malicious or vexations prosecution by any person who has come across the alleged defamatory item and thus save him from unnecessary harassment or undue hardship which may result from an inadequate appreciation by such person who is apparently not aggrieved by the facts stated in the alleged defamatory item. 34. The provision ensures protection from frivolous, malicious or vexations prosecution by any person who has come across the alleged defamatory item and thus save him from unnecessary harassment or undue hardship which may result from an inadequate appreciation by such person who is apparently not aggrieved by the facts stated in the alleged defamatory item. 34. In prosecuting a person making defamatory item the person aggrieved alone is in a position to assess and weigh the accusation against the background of their own intimate knowledge of the work and conduct of the accused and the overall administrative interest of the company. The company has an absolute discretion to grant or to withhold prosecution after satisfying itself whether the material placed before it discloses a prima facie case against the person sought to be prosecuted. The company is the sole judge of the material that is placed before it and not its individual employee. A company may refuse prosecution on any ground which commends itself to it if it considers prosecution as inexpedient. 35. The decision to authorize an individual to launch prosecution for defamation is a cognizant decision. Therefore, the complainant respondent ought to have produced such conscious decision taken by the company authorizing him to launch prosecution. In the absence of which a court would not issue process in defamation case against the petitioner, since admittedly the complainant is not named in the defamatory news item. 36. The complainants could not have alleged any specific injury to their person, when the defamation alleged in terms of the news items published in the newspaper is against the company and its directors or office bearers by name. In case of defamation 'person aggrieved' is to be treated as equivalent to the expression "person injured". The object of section 199 appears to limit the right of the complainant/person who suffered injury. Ordinarily, it is a person aggrieved, who is directly affected and injured. The question whether the complainant is legally aggrieved has to be determined by the nature of the offence and specific circumstances in each case. No doubt, when collection of persons which is identifiable, definite and determinate in relation to imputation has been defamed, any member thereof may make complaint under section 199(1), Cr.PC. 37. The question whether the complainant is legally aggrieved has to be determined by the nature of the offence and specific circumstances in each case. No doubt, when collection of persons which is identifiable, definite and determinate in relation to imputation has been defamed, any member thereof may make complaint under section 199(1), Cr.PC. 37. However, the law has restricted initiation of a criminal proceeding alleging defamation on behalf of the company by every such individual, who may have been hurt by the defamatory news item. The company, as a matter of fact, is a legal entity. Even if remarks are defamatory against the company and even if the complainant is hurt by any derogatory statement of imputation against the company, as an employee, for any sentimental reason would not be permitted to initiate prosecution, on behalf of the company, without being authorized by the company to initiate a complaint. Had there been no embargo imposed by section 199, Cr.PC, and the Companies Act, 1955, the courts would have been flooded with complaints filed by the share holders and the employees of the company, for every such defamatory news item published against the a Director of the Company. 38. It is the company or its individual directors or the office bearers, who only can maintain a complaint for alleged defamation, before the appropriate court, being the person aggrieved. The discipline of suing on behalf of the company and/or to be sued by it, has been regulated by the Companies Act, 1956. 39. Therefore, every employee of the company cannot initiate complaint on behalf of the company, for alleged defamatory remarks against one of its Director, for sentimental reason, without being specifically authorized by the company. The company as a juristic person, therefore, it has to take a conscious decision, as to whether, it feels aggrieved by the alleged defamatory news item and then has to spell out its intention in writing-to initiate the proceeding. 40. The company also cannot legally permit its several employees to file criminal complaints for publication of same alleged defamatory news items against it in the news paper. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. 40. The company also cannot legally permit its several employees to file criminal complaints for publication of same alleged defamatory news items against it in the news paper. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and the attendant embargo imposed by the statute, is whether sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home against the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence and scanning the materials on record before summoning of the accused. Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine, if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. 41. Apparently, in the instant case, three complaints have been filed on. behalf of the company, for the same cause of action, i.e., for publishing defamatory news item in the Syandan Patrika, published from Agartala against the Director of the company named in the news item. Though the complainants, who are employees of the company, have stated in the complaint that they have been authorized by the company to represent the company, admittedly no authority letter was placed on record, before taking cognizance of the offence. No authorization letter has been placed on record to show that the company had authorized the complainants. Therefore, apparently, the complainants voluntarily came forward to exalt and praise the cause of the company by filing complaints for alleged defamation against its Director of the company. But, there is no prima facie proof of the fact that the complainants are authorized on behalf of the company to file the complaint. Therefore, apparently, the complainants voluntarily came forward to exalt and praise the cause of the company by filing complaints for alleged defamation against its Director of the company. But, there is no prima facie proof of the fact that the complainants are authorized on behalf of the company to file the complaint. On the top of it, the employee of a company cannot be said to be aggrieved persons, when the alleged defamatory news item is against the company or its Director and not against the individual employee of the company. Without authorization in this regard by the company in writing, an employee of a company cannot be said to have been authorized to represent the company to initiate the criminal complaint for alleged defamation of the company or its Director. Admittedly none of the complainants in all these cases have been individually named in the alleged defamatory news item. 42. In view of the above discussions, I hold that the complainants, not being the persons aggrieved and/or authorized by the company, in terms of the provision of the Companies Act 1955, have no locus standi to file the complaint, for defamation of the company or its Director and/or office berarer on account of the legal bar created by section 199, Cr.PC. Accordingly, the revision petitions are allowed and the proceedings pending in (1) Case No.CR 03/2010, in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, South Tripura, Udaipur, (2) in Case No. C.R. 168 of 2009, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.5, West Tripura, Agartata, and (3) in Case No. C.R.01 of 2010, pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bishalgarh, West Tripura, are hereby quashed and set aside. Let a copy of this order be sent to the respective learned trial courts. _____________