K.R. Karalan vs Southern Roadways Ltd.

Natarajan, J.—These two petitions are connected and have been filed by the same person. In the former petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings against him in C.C. No. 1183 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai and in the latter petition, he seeks quashing of the proceedings against him in C.C. No. 55/83 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Virudhunagar.

The Petitioner has come to file the two petitions in the following circumstances: The Petitioner is an Advocate at Madurai. In addition, he is also the General Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Forward Block and a social worker. The Respondent herein filed two complaints against him for an offence of defamation. One complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai and the other complaint, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Virudhunagar. In the complaint it is stated that on 29th December, 1982 the Petitioner affixed some posters containing defamatory averments against the complainant on some walls in and around Aviyur village and particularly in the wall of a tea shoo situate opposite to Messrs Sundaram Fasteners in Madurai-Aruppukottai Main Road. In the other case it is stated that on the morning of 30th December, 1982, the Petitioner had taken three urchins with him to the Central Bus-stand at Madurai and with the help of these urchins, he pasted certain posters containing defamatory allegations against the complainant on the bodies of the several buses taking off from the Central Bus-stand including buses run by the Pandian Roadways Corporation and the Kattabomman Roadways Corporation. Among other things it is mentioned in the posters that the complainant had appropriated the lands of the agriculturists of Aviyur by means of threat and intimidation; that the land has been obtained pursuant to a conspiracy after telling the owners of the land that they would be given employment in the factories of the complainant; that the complainant had posed himself as a Government Officer and swallowed the land of agriculturists and committed fraud; that the complainant had cheated the agriculturists and secured valuable agricultural lands, etc., etc., and in order to condemn the unlawful acts of the complainant, a meeting would be held on 31st December, 1982 in front of the farm of the complainant and the Petitioner would inaugurate the meeting.

Alleging that the materials contained'' in the posters were per se defamatory and harmed the reputation of the, complainant Thiru Chandran, Additional Executive Officer of the complainant company, filed the two complaints in question. In respect of the pasting of posters on the bodies of buses at the Madurai Central Bus-stand, the complaint was presented to the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Madurai. In respect of the pasting of posters at Aviyur, the complaint was filed before the Magistrate having jurisdiction over that area, viz., the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Virudhunagar.

Both the Magistrates have taken the complaints on the file and issued process to. the Petitioner. On receipt of summons, the Petitioner raised certain preliminary objections before the respective courts, but those objections have been overruled. Thereafter, the Petitioner has come to this Court to invoke the power of this Court u/s 482 , Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings against him.

Mr. Bavanandam, learned Counsel for the Petitioner in the two cases, raises various contentions to argue that the complaints are per se not maintainable and hence the two learned Magistrates in question should not have taken the complaints On file. The first contention raised is that Thiru Chandran, Additional Executive Officer of the Respondent company is not an aggrieved person and hence he is not competent to file the complaints. In support of his argument, counsel relies upon Section 199(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, where it is laid down that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. By way of Judicial authority for his argument Mr. Bavanandam cites G. Narasimhan, G. Kasturi and K. Gopalan Ors. Vs. T.V. Chokkappa, where the Supreme Court laid down that in respect of a complaint made by a company or an association or collection of persons as such, "the identity of the company or the association or the collection of persons must be established so as to be relatable to the defamatory words or imputations". For more than one reason, the contention of Mr. Bavanandam cannot be accepted. Explanation (2) to Section 499, I.P.C., lays down that it may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. In this case, the statements which are complained of as defamatory refer to the T.V.S. Management or Organisation. In the complaint, it is stated as follows:

The complainant company is one of the units of the ''T.V.S.'' group of concerns which are generally known to the public and referred to by them as ''T.V.S.'' Company.

Therefore, it follows that everyone who be longs to the management of the group company can be termed an aggrieved person. The company, though a juridical entity, does not have a physical or bodily existence in flesh and blood and, such, only the Directors or the Managerial staff or representatives of the company can institute auction on behalf of the company. In this case, the clear averment in the complaint is that Thiru Chandran, Additional Executive Officer, who has filed the complaint has been duly authorised by the Management of the company to take appropriate legal action in regard to the subject-matter of the complaints and connected legal matters. In the light of these factors, there is absolutely no scope for the Petitioner to contend that the complaints have not been preferred by an aggrieved person and consequently, the complaints have been taken on file in violation of the provisions of Section 199(1), Code of Criminal Procedure.

I may only refer in this connection to a judgment of a learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court in The Phaltan Sugar Works Ltd. Vs. Mansingrao Dhondiram Kadam and Another, The facts in that case were that a public limited company caused a complaint to be filed by its general power of attorney against two person for committing an offence of defamation against the company. The trial Court took the complaint on file holding that the general power of attorney was competent to file the complaint on behalf of the company. In revision, the Sessions Judge set aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter the company took up the matter to the High Court. The learned Judge accepted the contention of the company and held the ''the company, not being a natural person, cannot act personally, but must act through its officers, such as the Board of Directors or the Manager or the Secretary and hence the complaint filed by the general power of attorney was a complaint really filed by the aggrieved party. I am in respectful agreement with the ratio laid down in that case.

The decision cited by Mr. Bavanandam has no application to the facts of the present cases. In that case a member of the Dravida Kazhagam filed a complaint against the printer, publisher and some others of a newspaper for having published a defamatory article. An objection was raised stating that the complainant was not an aggrieved person. The Supreme Court accepted the contention and held that the conference at which the resolution was alleged to have been passed and which, according to the complainant, was defamatory in nature, was not a determinate and identifiable body and in such circumstances, it was not possible to hold that the defamatory words'' used in relation to the resolution amounted to defamation of the individuals who comprised it and further held that the complainant, claiming to be one of the individuals who composed the resolution was not competent to file a complaint on the ground that he was an aggrieved person.

The next contention of the Petitioner''s counsel is that the averments contained in the posters are not per se defamatory. I would not like to express any opinion on this aspect of the matter except to the limited extent of saying that the courts below had not acted wrongly in coming to a prima facie conclusion that the contents of the posters appeared to contain defamatory material and therefore there was need to take the complaints on file and issue process to the accused. I am not going any further into this aspect of the matter because the door must be open for the Petitioner to raise this contention before the trial Court that the contents of the posters are not per se defamatory and therefore, he cannot be convicted of an offence of defamation.

The third contention is that, in any event, there is no evidence that it was the Petitioner who caused the publication of the defamatory posters. In other words, the Petitioner''s counsel would say that even assuming that the Petitioner had caused the offending posters to be pasted, he cannot be taken to be author of those posters. On the other hand, Mr. Natarajan, learned Counsel for the Respondent-complainant, states that the complainant had caused enquiries to be made and had gathered materials to show that it was the Petitioner who had got these posters printed in printing presses. Such being the case, this is a matter for the trial court to go into. This Court cannot merely accept the ipse dixit of the Petitioner that he was not the author of the offending posters.

The further contention of the Petitioner''s counsel is that in any event, the complainant is not entitled to file two complaints in respect of the same offence. This contention overlooks the fact that the publications complained of in the two complaints do not relate to one and the same place, but they relate to two different places. In one case, the pasting of posters was at Aviyur whereas in the other case it was at the Central Bus-stand at Madurai. It would therefore follow that the Petitioner had caused publication of defamatory material at two different places. In view of that, the complainant is entitled in law to file two different complaints in the appropriate courts having jurisdiction over the respective areas. In U.M. Aravamutha Iyengar Vs. Rajarathna Mudaliar, , Somasundaram, J., held that if two offences of defamation are committed, one in a village where the accused has been publishing libellous allegations against the complainant and the other, by posting letters to others in other places, then the complainant is entitled to maintain two complaints, and the accused will not be entitled to ask for a clubbing together of the two cases so that a joint trial could be held. Hence, none of the contentions put forth by the Petitioner to seek quashing of the two cases filed against him by the Respondent-company has any substance or merit in it. Consequently, both the petitions will stand dismissed.