AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is a petition under Section under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Sections 397/401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking for setting aside the order, dated 19.06.2017, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dibrugarh in C. R. Case No. 54/2017 under Sections 500/501/34 IPC.
The petitioners’ case, in a nutshell, is that the complainant/ respondent No. 2 herein filed a complaint petition under Sections 499/500/34 of the IPC against them in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, whereupon C. R. Case No. 54c/ 2013 was registered and made over to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dibrugarh for disposal. After inquiry under Section 200 Cr.P.C., on being prima-facie satisfied, the learned Magistrate by order, dated 19.06.2017, took cognizance of the offences under Sections 500/501/34 IPC against the petitioners. The petitioners have contended that in terms of Section 7 of the Press Registration of Book Act, 1867, it is only the Editor or Printer or Publisher of a newspaper can be fastened with criminal liability unless specific contentions are made in the complaint petition against any other person. As stated in the complaint, the petitioner No. 1 is the newspaper, the petitioner No. 2 is the Producer and Secretary of Purbanchal Prahari, the petitioner No. 3 is the Working Secretary of Purbanchal Prahari, petitioner No. 4 is the Associate Editor, the petitioner No. 5 is the Reporter of Purbanchal Prahari and hence, in view of the settled position of law, the petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 cannot be prosecuted under the aforesaid Sections of the IPC. The petitioners have further contended that in the complaint petition, there is no averment as to how the petitioners are responsible or had knowledge or consented to the publication of the alleged defamatory news items, dated 27.04.2017 and 28.04.2017 in Purbanchal Prahari, Jorhat edition and also that they are responsible for management and affairs of the said newspaper industry. It is also the contention of the petitioners that they have no personal animosity against the complainant/ respondent No. 2 herein and that there is no averment in the complaint petition to this effect nor any material on record to warrant an inference of any guilty intention behind the publication of the said news items,on the part of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the allegations made in the complaint petition, if taken at their face value and if accepted in their entirety, do not fasten any liability upon the petitioners.
The respondent No. 2, by filing an affidavit-in-opposition, dated 23.03.2018, has clarified that the petitioner No. 2 is the Chief Editor of the newspaper/ petitioner No. 1 herein, who has control over selecting the news items and similarly, the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are the working Editor and Associate Editor of the said newspaper respectively and further, the petitioner No. 5 was the reporter of the petitioner No. 1, who reported the defamatory news items, for which they are arrayed as accused in the complaint petition. It has been further averred that the report of the Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI), in respect of the said newspaper, namely, Purbanchal Prahari confirms that the petitioner No. 2 is the Editor of the said newspaper and also this fact is substantiated in the case of Ghisalal Agarwalla & Ors., Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2017 (2) GLT 354. It is also averred that the complaint petition discloses commission of prima-facie case against the petitioners under Sections 499/500/34 IPC and in the overall backdrop of facts, the petitioners cannot claim immunity under Section 7 of the Press Registration of Books Act, 1867.
The petitioner No. 2, by filing an affidavit-in-reply, dated 11.06.2018, to the above affidavit-in-opposition contended, inter-alia, that the respondent
No. 2’s averments are contrary to what he has stated in the complaint and attempt has been made to amend/ substitute/ alter his statements made in the complaint to improve his case.
Heard Mr. B. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. Boruah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 as well as Mr. P. Sarmah, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 reiterated the grounds they pleaded as stated above. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his argument relied upon the principles reiterated in the judgment rendered by a single bench of this Court in Ghisalal Agarwalla & Ors., Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2017 (2) GLT 354 and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 referred to the principle of law laid by the Supreme Court in S.R. Sukumar Vs. Sunaad Raghuram, reported in (2015) 9 SCC 609.
Perusal of the complaint petition, dated 12.05.2017, filed by the complainant/ respondent No. 2 herein, inter-alia, reveals that he is a chartered accountant by profession and associated with many social and cultural organizing activity. It is further revealed that since the date of publication of the impugned false news items, some vested interested persons who do not want to see him in the field of profession and in social life started hatching up conspiracy against him. It further prima-facie reveals that the accused petitioners herein, by publishing false and fabricated news items against him lowered his reputation, in the estimation of the public in general. For better appreciation of the facts, the relevant paragraphs of the complaint petition are herein extracted below:-
“…5 That the accused persons published highly objectionable and defamatory news in their daily newspaper under the name and style of PURBANCHAL PRAHARI dated Jorhat 27 April 2017 edition as “ DIBRUGARH ME JARI CA SANJAY KI DADAGIRI” in page no. 3 which is highly objectionable and defamatory and lowered the image of the complainant in the society. (Annexure-4 is the Xerox copy of news item published in accused person no. 1).
“6….That the accused persons again on 28 April 2017 published a news under the Head as “DIBRUGARH ME BHARKE SANGTHAN VO
VYPAPARI, SONOWAL KA NAM KIYA BADNAM, SANJAY JAIN NE SAMAJ KO BANA LIYA DHAL VYAPARIYO KO DHOS
DIKHAKAR MALAMAL” in page no. 3 which is highly objectionable and defamatory and lowered the image of the complainant in the society.
(Annexure-5 is the Xerox copy of news item published in accused person no. 1).
“7….That the accused persons paper published the false and baseless news and circulated with false, fabricated and baseless news without having any truth stating as “DIBRUGARH ME JARI CA SANJAY JAIN KI DADAGIRI” & “DIBRUGARH ME BHARKE SANGTHAN VO
VYPAPARI, SONOWAL KA NAM KIYA BADNAM, SANJY JAIN NE SAMAJ KO BANA LIYA DHAL VYPARIYO KO DHOS
DIKHAKAR MALAMAL”.
Section 499 defines the term ‘defamation’ and Section 500 of the IPC provides punishment for defamation. The essential ingredients for an offence under Section 500 IPC requires (a) the making or publishing of an imputation concerning any person; (b) such imputation must have been made (i) by words either spoken or intended to be read; or (ii) by signs, (iii) or, by visible representations and (c) such imputations must have been made with the intention of harming, or knowing, or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned. Therefore, the complainant has to make out a case of (i) making any imputation concerning him, (ii) that such imputation was made with the intention of harming or with the knowledge or having reason to believe that it would harm the reputation of the complainant against whom such statement was made. In case of defamation by written words, in order to complete the offence of defamation, it must be established that the imputation received publication and as such, publication is the gist of the offence. Here it is pertinent to mention that the definition of ‘good faith’ in Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code does away with the presumption that the accused acted bona fide until the contrary is proved and the accused has to establish that he made the imputation, not without due care and circumspection, because ‘good faith’ implies honest effort to say the truth, for the good of public, the burden to prove of which is always on the accused.
Be it mentioned here that Section 7 of the Press Registration of Book Act, 1867 provides that the Editor or Printer or Publisher of a newspaper can only be fastened with criminal liability and any other person provided specific contentions are made in the complaint petition. The accused petitioner
No. 2, who is shown to be the producer and secretary of the said newspaper is, in fact, the Chief Editor of the said newspaper, who has undoubtedly control over the news items published therein and the petitioners No. 3 & 4, although, shown as the Working Secretary is the Working Editor and the Associate Editor respectively of the said newspaper. Further, the accused petitioner No. 5 was the Reporter of the accused petitioner No. 1-the newspaper, who reported the alleged defamatory news items. The aforesaid corrections are related to the original complaint petition made by way of filing the affidavit-in-opposition by the respondent No. 2 in the instant proceeding instead of making an amendment to the original complaint petition. In
S. R. Sukumar Vs. S. Sunaad Raghuram, reported in (2015) 9 SCC 609, the Apex Court observed as under:-
“17… Insofar as merits of the contention regarding allowing of amendment application, it is true that there is no specific provision in the Code to amend either a complaint or a petition filed under the provisions of the Code, but the Courts have held that the petitions seeking such amendment to correct curable infirmities can be allowed even in respect of complaints. In U.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Modi Distillery And Ors., (1987) 3 SCC 684, wherein the name of the company was wrongly mentioned in the complaint that is, instead of Modi Industries Ltd. the name of the company was mentioned as Modi Distillery and the name was sought to be amended. In such factual background, this Court has held as follows:-
“6…The learned Single Judge has focussed his attention only on the pictechnical flaw in the complaint and has failed to comprehend that the flaw had occurred due to the recalcitrant attitude of Modi Distillery and furthermore the infirmity is one which could be easily removed by having the matter remitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate with a direction to call upon the appellant to make the formal amendments to the averments contained in para 2 of the complaint so as to make the controlling company of the industrial unit figure as the concerned accused in the complaint. All that has to be done is the making of a formal application for amendment by the appellant for leave to amend by substituting the name of Modi Industries Limited, the company owning the industrial unit, in place of Modi Distillery…. Furthermore, the legal infirmity is of such a nature which could be easily cured..
“18….. What is discernible from the U.P. Pollution Control Board’s case is that easily curable legal infirmity could be cured by means of a formal application for amendment. If the amendment sought to be made relates to a simple infirmity which is curable by means of a formal amendment and by allowing such amendment, no prejudice could be caused to the other side, notwithstanding the fact that there is no enabling provision in the Code for entertaining such amendment, the Court may permit such an amendment to be made. On the contrary, if the amendment sought to be made in the complaint does not relate either to a curable infirmity or the same cannot be corrected by a formal amendment or if there is likelihood of prejudice to the other side, then the Court shall not allow such amendment in the complaint”.
The question that arises, therefore, whether the original complaint can be amended by way of filing an affidavit of clarification in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The answer to this is certainly negative for the reasons that such amendment relates to the foundation of the case, based on a complaint filed in the trial Court and when there is no specific provision in the code of Criminal Procedure providing for amendment of original complaint or petition by the High Court. The remedy surely lies in making a formal application for amendment by the complainant for leave to amend by substituting appropriate designations of the accused persons.
In the backdrop of the above facts and reasons assigned, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot effectively be adjudicated, when there are flaws in some of the designations of the accused persons/ petitioners herein, which are formal in nature, in the original complaint.
Accordingly, the respondent No. 2/ complainant may take appropriate steps for amendment of the complaint, if so advised.
Resultantly, the petition stands closed, with liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court afresh, if aggrieved, on fresh set of facts relating to their grievance that may arise out of the said proceeding.
With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of.