Tankasala Ashok Rao and Girish Sanghi vs The State of A.P. and Bathula Subba Rao

A. Gopal Reddy, J.—This petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings initiated against the Petitioner-A-3 in CC No. 135/2004 on the file of I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narasarapet, Guntur District.

The peitioner-A-3 along with others was facing trial for the offence u/s 500 IPC.

It is not in dispute the Petitioner is a Chief Editor of Vartha Telugu Daily newspaper. A news item was published in Guntur edition on 18-3-2003 stating under the main caption "Rs. 1.76 crores cherina miller mosam" (cheating by miller upto Rs. 1.76 crores) and under the sub-caption "Moodu lorreela dhanyam dopidi" (looted three lorries of paddy"), wherein it was alleged that the complainant and Kotha Purnaiah entered unlawfully into the godown, threatened the persons present there and looted three lorry loads of paddy and with that effect a case in Cr. No. 33/2003 of Narasaraopet Rural Police Station was registered for the offence punishable u/s 448 and 380 IPC, in which Kotha Purnaiah and Sreenivasa rao were shown as accused.

The complainant-second Respondent alleging though he was not concerned with the said crime, news item published mentioning the complainant''s name created great mental agony to him and he is defamed in the eyes of news readers and it effects his reputation in the Society filed a private complaint u/s 200 Code of Criminal Procedure, before the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narasaraopet against the Petitioner herein and three others, for the offence punishable u/s 500 IPC. Learned Magistrate took the cognizance of the complaint and issued process after recording the sworn statement of the complainant.

Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that when a similar news item was published in Andhra Bhoomi Telugu daily newspaper in Guntur Edition on 18-3-2003 under the caption "Muudu Lorryila Dhanyam Apharana" one Bathula Subba Rao (the second Respondent herein) filed a complaint against Andhra Bhoomi, in which Editor of the paper is shown as A-2 in CC No. 134/2004 and A-2 filed Crl.P. No. 2172/2006 before this Court and this Court quashed the proceedings initiated against A-2 for the offence punishable u/s 500 IPC by order dt. 12-7-2006 and prays that the proceedings initiated against the Petitioner, who is similarly placed with that of A-2 in CC No. 134/2004, are liable to be quashed. He further contends that in the absence of any allegations in the complaint that the news item was published with mala fide intention to defame the complainant, Section 500 IPC has not been attracted, and therefore the proceedings initiated against the Petitioner are liable to be quashed.

This Court in Crl.P. No. 2172/2006 passed orders dt. 12-7-2006 quashing the proceedings initiated against A-2 in CC No. 134/2004 holding as follows:

As per Section 499 IPC, the publication shall be made against any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person. The ninth exception to Section 499 IPC exempted the person from the prosecution when the imputation is made in good faith by person for protection of his or other''s interest.

As the news item was published by the police, the Petitioner might have though that in the public interest the news Item has to be published wherein the name has been wrongly mentioned.

7.From the above circumstances, it is clear that the Petitioner is not intended to defame the complainant by making any imputation affecting his reputation. Though the leaned Magistrate found that there is prima facie material against the Petitioner for the offence u/s 500 IPC in the light of the above discussion, I do not find any prima facie material against the Petitioner to continue the prosecution.

This Court quashed the above proceedings in ignorance of law as declared by the Supreme Court in Sewakram Sobhani Vs. R.K. Karanjia Chief Editor, Weekly Blitz and Others, In the said case, Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, speaking for a majority in a Bench of three Judges held as under:

The High Court appears to be labouring under an impression that journalists enjoyed some kind of special privilege, and have greater freedom than others to make any imputations or allegations, sufficient to ruin the reputation of a citizen. We hasten to add that journalists are in no better position than any other person. Even the truth of an allegation does not permit a justification under First Exception unless it is proved to be in the public good. The question whether or not it was for public good is a question of fact like any other relevant facts in issue, If they make assertions of facts as opposed to comments on them, they must either justify these assertions or, in the limited cases specified in the Ninth Exception, show that the attack on the character of another was for the public good, or that it was made in good faith" (para 11)

"SEVERAL questions arise for consideration if the Ninth Exception is to be applied to the facts of the present case. Was the article published after exercising due care and attention? Did the author of the article satisfy himself that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the imputations made by him were true? Did he act with reasonable care and a sense of responsibility and propriety? Was the article based entirely on the report of the Deputy Secretary or was there any other material before the author? What steps did the author take to satisfy him self about the authenticity of the report and its contents? Were the imputations made rashly without any attempt at verifications? Was the imputation the result of any personal ill will or malice which the author bore towards the complainant? Was it the result of any ill will or malice which the author bore towards the political group to which the complainant belonged? Was the article merely intended to malign and scandalise the complainant or the party to which he belonged? Was the article intended to expose the rottenness of a jail administration which permitted free sexual approaches between male and female detenus? Was the article intended to expose the despicable character of persons who were passing off as saintly leaders? Was the article merely intended to provide salacious reading material for readers who had a peculiar taste for scandals? These and several other questions may arise for consideration, depending on the stand taken by the accused at the trial and how the complainant proposes to demolish the defence. Surely the stage for deciding these questions has not arrived yet. Answers to these questions at this stage, even before the plea of the accused is recorded can only be a priori conclusions, ''good faith'' and ''public good'' are, as we said, questions of fact and matters for evidence. So, the trial must go on. (para 17)

"Defamation" has been defined u/s 499 IPC. It reads as under:

Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.

Since the person who published the news item has not taken due care before publishing the same. The question whether it was for public good is a question of fact, which has to be gone during the course of trial on the evidence adduced. Therefore, it is not a fit case where this Court can quash the proceedings initiated against the Petitioner/A-3 without giving an opportunity to the second Respondent-complainant to prove his case.

The Criminal Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the disposal of the quashing petition and the trial court has to decide the case on merit uninfluenced by any of the said observations.