Ujwal Chandra vs The State of Jharkhand and Another

Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.—In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 11.08.2000 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in Complaint Case No. 47/1999, whereby he has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

The complaint was made by the opposite party No. 2. The complainant claimed to be Assistant District Secretary of Bolero District Counsel, Communist Party of India and a journalist by profession. According to him he is an accredited journalist certified by Government of Bihar, since 1987 and staff reporter of Hindi Daily ''Bharat Rash'' published from Dhanbad. He came to know that fellow journalist Ujwal Chandra, (Chief Editor of ''Bokaro Mail'')(Petitioner) was assaulted by some people for teasing one Kumari Anupama. An FIR. was also lodged against him and case was registered u/s 354 of the Indian Penal Code, Chas P.S. Case No. 6/99. Some other newspapers namely ''AwaJ'', ''Prabhat Khobar'', ''Chamakta Aina'' also published the same. The locql unit of Bokaro Manila Samaj and other organizations like Bokaro Chamber of Commerce and Industries, Sahu Bazar Samiti also condemned the indecent behaviour of the petitioner. Photographs were also published In several dallies namely Hindustan, Bharat Rash, Chamakta Aina. Photograph of demonstration of Bokaro Mahila Samaj was also published in the newspaper. In retaliation the petitioner, who happens to be the Chief Editor of Bokaro Mail, Published objectionable items against the complainant making various allegations, such as Lota Jhota Lekar Bampanthi Part Time Ghuspaith Banaya, "Ek Sandigdh Baykti" etc. and also called him "Dalai Numa Natwar Lal". The complainant alleged that the news/reports were published 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd 23rd January, 1999 baselessly and maliciously to lower clown the complainant''s prestige in estimation of the society and to intentionally defame him constituting offences under Sections 500, 501, 502 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

On the basis of the solemn affirmation and the statement of witnesses, as also on perusal of other documents, learned 50 or Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code and took cognizance of the said offences against the petitioner.

The petitioner contended that he is the Chief Editor of the newspaper and that for publication of any derogatory news against the complainant he cannot be held responsible. No offence on such allegation is constituted against him und the alleged Sections of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has referred to and relied on the decision of Haji C.H. Mohammad Koya Vs. T.K.S.M.A. Muthukoya, . He submitted that for the news item published in Bokaro Mail, he can not be held liable, and the cognizance of the said offence against him is illegal and without any basis.

Learned A.P.P. opposed the petitioner''s prayer and submitted that on bare reading of the complaint petition, it is clear that the allegation against the petitioner Is by name, and not against the newspaper of which he happens to be the Chief Editor. The root of the complaint was publication of a news item and photograph taken by the petitioner and not against publisher/editor of the newspaper. As the petitioner happens to be the Chief Editor, he, in retaliation, published the said derogatory and defamatory reports against the complainant in ''Bokaro Mail''. The allegation is specifically against the petitioner and the same goes to constitute the offences, of which the cognizance of the offences has been taken. Learned court below on perusal of the complaint, solemn affirmation of the complainant, statement of the witnesses and the other materials and the documents placed before him, found sufficient materials for taking cognizance and he has rightly passed the order taking cognizance. There is No illegality and infirmity in the impugned order.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on the record. On going through the complaint petition, I find that the allegations are specifically against the petitioner by name. The petitioner, who happens to be the Chief Editor, allegedly has published the news item, .which, according to the complainant, is derogatory and defamatory. Learned Magistrate has considered the) allegations made in the complaint and supported by the solemn affirmation, statement of the witnesses and other materials on record and found sufficient material constituting the offences aforesaid and has taken cognizance of the said offences against the petitioner.

I, find No infirmity or illegality in the impugned order taking cognizance. The decision of Supreme Court in Haji C.H. Mohammad Koya has been rendered on different facts where the term ''Editor'' has been interpreted in view of the definition given In Section 1(1) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 wherein It has been held that the Editor means a person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper. In the instant case allegation is not of selecting or controlling selection, rather the allegation is that the petitioner deliberately got the said news items published in the newspaper in order to intentionally defame the complainant. The said decision is, thus, not applicable to the facts of the instant case.

I, therefore, find No ground to interfere with the impugned order of the learned court below.

This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.