Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2944 (DEL)

Indu Jain v. N. C. T. of Delhi

2012-10-18

M.L.MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT : 1. This application under Section 482 CrPC seeks expunging of a line in Para 6 of the judgment delivered by this court on 20.3.2012 in Crl.M.C. 685/2008. 2. The petitioners had filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the criminal complaint No. 343/1/2002 as also the summoning orders passed against them by M.M. in the complaint that was filed against them by the respondent No. 2. The petitioners, who are the Chairperson and the Managing Director of M/s. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd.. were sought to be prosecuted along with others under Sections 499/500/501/502 read with Section 34 1PC because of publication of an article, allegedly defamatory of respondent No. 2. The petitioners sought quashing of complaint and the summoning orders on the grounds that there was no act or omission attributed to them and they were only arrayed as parties because of they being the Chairperson and Managing Director of the company, and that they had nothing to do with the impugned publications and were not involved with the making, printing or publishing the impugned article. Vide judgment dated 20.3.2012, the complaint as also the summoning orders qua the petitioners were quashed by this court. 3. The instant application has been filed by the petitioners seeking expunging or recalling/modifying a line appearing in Para 6 of the said judgment. Para 6 of the judgment reads thus: "Section 5 of the Press and Registration of Books Act stipulates that every printer and publisher of a newspaper shall make a statutory declaration before a competent Magistrate, in the prescribed form. Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act provides that unless the contrary is proved, the persons declared as printer, publisher and editor of the newspaper are presumed to be responsible for the contents of the newspaper. There is no doubt regarding the fact that the article was defamatory in nature but the question before this Court is that whether any person other than the Printer, Publisher and Editor can be prosecuted for a defamatory article or not". 4. The petitioners have sought expunging or modifying/recalling of the last line of the aforesaid paragraph of judgment. It is contended that the observation of the court that the article was defamatory in nature, was unwarranted for the decision of the petition under Section 482 CrPC of the petitioners. 4. The petitioners have sought expunging or modifying/recalling of the last line of the aforesaid paragraph of judgment. It is contended that the observation of the court that the article was defamatory in nature, was unwarranted for the decision of the petition under Section 482 CrPC of the petitioners. It is submitted that the observation recorded in the last line of the aforesaid paragraph is likely to affect and prejudice the other co-accused persons facing prosecution in the aforesaid criminal complaint. 5. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 2 that as per Section 362 CrPC, this court has no power to alter or review its judgment except for the purpose of correcting a clerical or arithmetical error. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the petition under Section 482 CrPC was filed seeking quashing of the complaint and the summoning orders, and which, in fact, was allowed on the ground that the presumption of the responsibility for the contents of the newspaper was of printer, publisher or an editor of the newspaper and that, there was nothing in the complaint to substantiate the allegations that the petitioners were responsible for the publication of the said article or had knowledge or consented to the publication of the objectionable article. 7. In view of above, it was opined that the complaint lacked any specific averment, which would indicate the criminal role of the petitioners in the publication of the said article. Thus, the complaint as also the summoning orders qua the petitioners were quashed on the ground of there being anything against them. In such circumstances, the observation in the last line of the Para No. 6 of the judgment that there is no doubt regarding the article being defamatory in nature, was certainly unwarranted and uncalled for. The court had no occasion to examine the article from that perspective. I am of the view that in fact, instead of words 'there is no doubt regarding the fact that the article was defamatory in nature', it ought to have been recorded that there is no need to go into the controversy as to whether the article is or not defamatory in nature. I am of the view that in fact, instead of words 'there is no doubt regarding the fact that the article was defamatory in nature', it ought to have been recorded that there is no need to go into the controversy as to whether the article is or not defamatory in nature. This all appears to be due to typographical mistake and could not be the intention of writing such a line. Consequently, the last line of Para 6 would be read as under: "There is no need to go into the controversy as to whether the article is or not defamatory in nature, but the question before this Court is that whether any person other than the Printer, Publisher and Editor can he prosecuted for a defamatory article or not". 8. In exercising this power, I am guided by the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohammad. Nairn, AIR 1964 SC 703 . In view of all this, the application is allowed in the manner as indicated.