Delhi District Court
M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd vs ) The State on 13 November, 2014
Author: Sh. Lokesh Sharma
             IN THE COURT OF SHRI LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA
      ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE−04, NEW DELHI DISTRICT
                       PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Unique I D No.                         :  02403R0184312013
Criminal Revision Number               :   57/2/14 dated 07.02.2014
CC No.                                 :   20/1/13
PS                                     :  Chanakyapuri
U/s                                    :   499/500 IPC
M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd.
Through its Director Sh. Rajeev Bhaduria
Jindal Centre, 12 Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi−110066                          ....Revisionist/Petitioner
                                                         versus
1)  The State
Through Additional Public Prosecutor
2) Planman Media Pvt. Ltd.
(Owner of the Sunday Indian)
IIPM Tower,
C−56/30, Sector−62,
Noida−201301
UP
3) Mr. 
Arindam Chaudhuri
Editor in Chief
The Sunday Indian
CR No. 57/2/14                                                                          
M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors. 
 IIPM Tower
C−56/30, Sector−62,
Noida−201301
UP    
4)  Mr. A. Sandeep
      Editor
     The Sunday Indian
      IIPM Tower
      C−56/30, Sector−62,
      Noida−201301
      UP    
M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd vs ) The State on 13 November, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/144953764/
1
5)    Mr. Ashok Bose
        Publisher
        The Sunday Indian
         IIPM Tower
         C−56/30, Sector−62,
         Noida−201301
         UP
                                                                                ..... Re
                                       Revision received by Court: 07.02.2014
                                       Arguments concluded            : 28.10.2014
                                       Date of order                  : 13.11.2014
                                                      :ORDER:
1 By way of the present revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the CR No. 57/2/14 2/32 M/s
Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
impugned order dated 04.10.2013 passed by the court of Ms. Gomati Manocha, Ld. MM−02, New
Delhi in CC No. 20/1/13 titled as Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs Planman India Pvt. Ltd & Ors.,
whereby the Ld. MM was pleased to decline issuance of summons against the respondents herein for
commission of an offence under section 499, 500 IPC related to criminal defamation of petitioner as
alleged in the complaint filed before the Ld. Trial Court and was further pleased to dismiss the said
complaint as filed by the complainant before the trial court.
2 Briefly stated the facts that had given rise to the filing of the present revision petition are
succinctly given as under:
As per the complainant/petitioner herein, petitioner is a listed public company incorporated under
the Companies Act 1956 having its registered office at OP Jindal Marg, Hissar and corporate office
at Jindal Centre, 12 Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi−110066 and Sh. Rajiv Bhaduria, one of its
directors had been authorized to file present petition on its behalf vide Board Resolution dated
10.01.2013.
On 04.01.2012 the respondent nos. 3 to 5 had edited, printed, published and circulated a special
story carrying the title "shooting the messenger literally" and "After khap and coalgate, Now Naveen
Jindal Spars with Zee" (offending article) in the magazine tiled "The Sunday Indian". As alleged the
offending article was published without due care, caution, just or CR No. 57/2/14 3/32 M/s Jindal
Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
reasonable cause and without even verifying the basic facts either from the petitioner or concerned
authorities and amounted to a deliberate attempt on the part of all the respondents to create a
wrong impression in the minds of general public concerning the petitioner as if the petitioner was
involved in the alleged "coalgate scam" with the sole intention to defame and lower down the
position of the petitioner publically by sensationalization and distortion of facts. The offending
article was not only per−se defamatory and motivated but also contained false, baseless and
M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd vs ) The State on 13 November, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/144953764/
2
misleading statements / allegations against the petitioner.
The respondent nos. 2 to 5 were served with a legal notice dated 15.11.2012, on behalf of the
petitioner, bringing to their notice that the contents of the offending articles published by them on
04.11.2012 were false and defamatory and they were also requested to immediately withdraw the
contents of the offending article and also to tender an express, unqualified and unambiguous
apology to the petitioner but despite that they had not done so and had further gone ahead with
publishing another defamatory article titled "The Hounding of Zee" against the petitioner in the
magazine "The Sunday Indian" on 23.12.2012, thereby falsely conveying that the petitioner and its
officials were dishonest and had unjustly enriched themselves at the cost of public monies. The
contents of those articles were stated to be not only knowingly in−accurate, misleading, hurtful,
biased, regressive, malicious, CR No. 57/2/14 4/32 M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
slanderous and per−se defamatory in nature qua petitioner and its management but were also
published without seeking any verification either from the petitioner or from the concerned public
authorities. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file before the trial court a complaint for the
commission of offences u/s 499, 500, 501, 502 IPC r/w section 34/120B IPC, explaining specific role
played by each of the aforesaid respondents in commission of said offences.
3 The Ld. Trial court vide its order dated 01.02.2013 after taking cognizance of the offences was
pleased to direct the complainant to lead its pre−summoning evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner
had examined three witnesses namely CW−1 Sh. Rohit Kumar, CW−2 Sh. Rajiv Bhaduria and CW−3
Sh. Sanjay Kumar in its pre summoning evidence. After hearing arguments, the Ld. Trial court had
dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant/petitioner vide impugned order dated 04.10.2013.
4 The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid impugned order on the following amongst other
grounds:
a) That the impugned order suffered from illegality, impropriety and material irregularity in as
much as it was contrary to the provisions of Cr.P.C., IPC and the facts on record and the Ld. Trial
Court instead of focusing on the defamatory nature of the offending articles was not even competent
to arrive at the said finding related to the passing references of CAG report qua the CR No. 57/2/14
5/32 M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
petitioner and those findings of the Ld. Trial Court were attributed to the petitioner as an admission
on its part and thus the same being contrary to the record, would have directly prejudiced the
investigation being carried out in the allocation of coal blocks and also the investigation into the
illegal acts of the reporters of the "Zee Group".It has also been stated that even the reliance on the
said CAG report as placed by the petitioner was only in furtherance of its bona fide conduct to
disclose all facts to the Ld. Trial Court and not as an admission of its contents and the petitioner
had, at no point of time, either in the pleadings or in the testimony of CWs or during the course of
arguments, had ever admitted to any wrong doing or illegality either being committed by it or by the
government/concerned ministries/agencies and hence the findings of the Ld. Trial Court on this
aspect were not only misleading but were also beyond its jurisdiction.
M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd vs ) The State on 13 November, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/144953764/
3
b) It has also been stated that the aforesaid two offending articles were published by the
respondents herein with the knowledge and belief that the same would have certainly caused harm
to the reputation, image and goodwill of the petitioner and the Ld. Trial Court had ignored the same
and had erroneously proceeded on the premises that intention was the sine qua non for the offence
of defamation, and the impugned order had been passed by the Ld. MM without appreciating the
relevant and material testimonies of CW1 and CW3 and on this very ground the present revision
petition deserved to be CR No. 57/2/14 6/32 M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
allowed.
c) It has been stated further that the Ld. Trial Court had also failed to appreciate the fact that the
media did not have the right or license to defame any person. The law of defamation treated all
citizens equally in this regard. Publishing houses were in no different position than that from an
individual. Media was also subject to the same rules as were applicable to others and no special
rights or privileges were granted to them under the law. Journalists rather had a greater
responsibility to guard against false statements for the simple reason that their utterances had a far
larger reach and impact than the utterance of an individual and they were more likely to be believed
by ignorant people.
d) The Ld. Trial Court had also failed to appreciate the ratio of judgments (1) passed by the Hon'ble
High Court of Calcutta in the case of Santosh Kumar Chatterjee v. Radhika Ranjan Ghose & Anr,
reported in 66 CWN 24; (2) K.M. Mathew v. K.A. Abraham & Ors, 2002(6) SCC 670; (3) K.
Gopalakrishnan & Ors v. A.C. Thomas & Anr, 2008(1) KLJ 385 and P.A. Abdul Hakkim & Anr. v.
Ramesan & Anr 207 (1) KLJ 726, while passing the impugned order, as the false and incorrect
statements published by the respondents no. 2 to 5 about the Chairman of the petitioner company
were, malicious and malafide, which were published in the form of two offending articles with an
intention to malice the position of Chairman of the petitioner CR No. 57/2/14 7/32 M/s Jindal Steel
& Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
company which would have caused a direct loss to the reputation of petitioner as well and hence
those acts of respondents no. 2 to 5 had squarely fallen within the four corners of the offence of
defamation. 5 I have heard Sh. Amit Sibbal, Ld. Sr. Counsel alongwith Sh Madhav Khurana, Ld.
Counsel for the petitioner, Sh Ravinder Bhati, Ld. Addl. PP for the respondent/state and also Sh.
Amit Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the remaining respondents and have considered the rival contentions
of the respective parties.
6 In order to appreciate the respective contentions raised before this court by the respective
parties,it shall be worthwhile to examine the provisions of sections 449 and 500 IPC, which are
reproduced here as under:
S. 499. Defamation.−−−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
M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd vs ) The State on 13 November, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/144953764/
4
hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. Explanation 1.−−It may amount to
defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm
the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of
his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2.−−It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a
company or an association or collection of persons as such.
CR No. 57/2/14 8/32 M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
Explanation 3.−−An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically,
may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4.−−No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that
imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or
intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect
of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be
believed that the body of that person is in loathsome state, or in a state generally
considered as disgraceful.
S.500. Punishment for defamation.−−−Whoever defames another shall be punished
with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both.
7 In the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, Sh. Amit Sharma, Ld. Counsel
appearing for respondents no. 2 to 5 has submitted that prima facie it is Naveen Jindal who is trying
to initiate the litigations under the garb of the petitioner which is a separate juristic identity and had
its own individual legal rights as well as obligations and since nothing defamatory in particular has
been averred against the petitioner in those articles, hence, the petitioner itself has no locus standi
to plead and peruse the case on behalf of Naveen Jindal. Besides this, Ld. Counsel appearing for the
respondents no. 2 to 5 has also taken the plea of defence of fair reporting available to the CR No.
57/2/14 9/32 M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
respondents while publishing any article in public interest at large and has also relied upon factors
and parameters for consideration to be borne in mind by the court while issuing orders of
summoning of the respondents no. 2 to 5 as accused in this case as personal liberty of an individual
is always at stake in criminal proceedings.
8 Reliance has also been placed on the citation reported as "President and Directors of Agricultural
Produce Cooperative Marking Society Ltd. v. M K Mohamed Ali & Ors", MANU/KA/0201/1967:
1969 Crl. L. J 701, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Mysore had held as under:
"Evidently it appears that the Magistrate had gone into the merits of the case which
he should not have done. For the purpose of ascertaining whether the complaint
M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd vs ) The State on 13 November, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/144953764/
5
petition was maintainable or not, or whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain
the same, the complaint petition itself ought to have been looked into. The Magistrate
was not right in adverting himself to the merits of the case." (Para 11) 9 Reliance has
also been placed on the ratio of judgment cited as "Homen Borgohain and ors v. The
Brahamaputra Valley Regional Handloom Weaver's Cooperative Society Ltd",
MANU/GH/0074/1994 : 1995 Cr. L.J. 2357 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of
Gauhati had held as under:
CR No. 57/2/14 10/32 M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
"Case of petitioner was that accused made some statements defaming only President
and Directors of Society and not of Society itself--Since a compliant by an aggrieved
person was a condition precedent to jurisdiction of a Court to deal with offences
mentioned in section 198 CrPC (old) a complaint by Society which was not aggrieved
person held to be a nullity--Further, complaint was not maintainable since an offence
under section 500 IPC could not be gone into in absence of person aggrieved--Hence,
complainant Society not being person aggrieved had no locus standi to file complaint
for defamation and accordingly proceeding in complaint which was pending was
liable to be quashed."
10 Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents has also relied upon the ratio of judgment in case
"Jawaharlal Darda and others v. Manohar Rao Ganpat Rao Kapsikar" (1998) 4 SCC 112, wherein it
had been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:
"..True report--If defamatory--Publication of news item disclosing accurate and true
report of proceedings of Legislative Assembly--Statement of Minister disclosing
misappropriation of govt. fund--Name of complainant mentioned as one of the
persons involved in such misappropriation--Circumstances disclosing that the news
item was published about public conduct of public servants for public good in good
faith believing the statement to be true." (Head Notes) CR No. 57/2/14 11/32 M/s
Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
11 Reliance has also been placed on the judgment in the case of "Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji
Gha Digaonkar and Anr.", 1960 Crl. L. J, 1499, wherein it had been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court
as under:
" The general scheme of the aforesaid sections is quite clear. Section 200 says inter
alia what a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall do on
receipt of such a complaint. Section 202 says that the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit,
for reasons to be recorded in writing, postpone the issue of process for compelling the
attendance of the person complained against and direct an inquiry for the purpose of
ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint; in other words, the scope of an
inquiry under the section is limited to finding out the truth or falsehood of the
complaint in order to determine the question of the issue of process. The inquiry is
M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd vs ) The State on 13 November, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/144953764/
6
for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint; that is, for
ascertaining whether there is evidence in support of the complaint so as to justify the
issue of process and commencement of proceedings against the person concerned.
The section does not say that a regular trial for adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the
person complained against should take place at that stage; for the person complained
against can be legally called upon to answer the accusation made against him only
when a process has issued and he is put on trial.
Section 203, be it noted, consists of two parts; the first part indicates what are the materials which
the Magistrate must consider and the second part says that if after considering those materials there
is in his judgment CR No. 57/2/14 12/32 M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
no sufficient ground for proceedings, he may dismiss the complaint. Section 204 says that if in the
opinion of Magistrate there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he shall take steps for the issue of
necessary process." (Para 9) Now, in the case before us it is not contended that the learned
Presidency magistrate failed to consider the materials which he had to consider, before passing his
order under section 203 CrPC. As a matter of fact the learned magistrate fully, fairly and impartially
considered these materials. What is contended on behalf of the respondent−complainant is that as a
matter of law it was not open to the learned magistrate to accept the plea of right of self−defence at a
stage when all that he had to determine was whether a process should issue or not against the
appellant. We are unable to accept this contention as correct. It is manifestly clear from the
provision of section 203 that the judgment which the magistrate has to form must be based on the
statements of the complainant and his witnesses and the result of the investigation or inquiry. The
Section itself makes that clear, and it is not necessary to refer to authorities in support thereof. But
the judgment which the Magistrate has to form is whether or not there is sufficient ground for
proceeding. This does not mean that the Magistrate is bound to accept the result of the inquiry or
investigation or that he must accept any plea that is set up on behalf of the person complained
against. The Magistrate must apply his judicial mind to the materials on which he has to form his
judgment. In arriving at his judgment he is not CR No. 57/2/14 13/32 M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd
Vs State & Ors.
fettered in any way except by judicial considerations; he is not bound to accept what the Inquiring
Officer says, nor is he precluded from accepting a plea based on an exception, provided always there
are satisfactory and reliable materials on which he can base his judgment as to whether there is
sufficient ground for proceeding on the complaint or not. If the Magistrate has not misdirected
himself as to the scope of an enquiry under section 202 and has applied his mind judicially to the
materials before him, we think that it would be erroneous in law to hold that a plea based on an
exception can never be accepted by him in arriving at his judgment. What bearing such a plea has on
the case of the complainant and his witnesses, to what extent they are falsified by the evidence of
other witnesses−−all these are questions which must be answered with reference to the facts of each
case. No universal rule can be laid in respect of such questions. (Para 10) 12 However, this judgment
as cited and relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 5 is of no use and avail to them
and is distinguishable on the basis of the facts of the present case where provisions of section 203
CrPC were never even resorted to by the Ld. Trial Court. 13 Ld. Counsel appearing for the
M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd vs ) The State on 13 November, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/144953764/
7
respondents has also placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of "Pepsi Foods ltd. And another
v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others", (1998) 5 SCC 749, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had CR
No. 57/2/14 14/32 M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
held as under:
" Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law
cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to
bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the
criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused
must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law
applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint
and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be
sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is
not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary
evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise
the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complaint
and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or
otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of
the accused."
(para 28) 14 Reliance has also been placed on the judgment in the case of "Hydru v.
State of Kerala" (2004)13 SCC 374 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held as under:
"...It is well settled that in revision against acquittal by a private party, the powers of
the Revisional Court are very limited. It can interfere only if there is any CR No.
57/2/14 15/32 M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
procedural irregularity or material evidence has been overlooked or misread by the
subordinate court. If upon reappraisal of evidence, two views are possible, it is not
permissible even for the appellate court in appeal against acquittal to interfere with
the same, much less in revision where the powers are much narrower. ... "
(Para 3) 15 Besides this, reliance has also been placed by Ld. Counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 5
on some of the extracts of CAG report. However, findings of the CAG report are irrelevant to the
facts of the present case as they are per−se not−admissible in evidence and are required to be proved
in ordinary manner as provided under Indian Evidence Act. 16 Per contra, Sh. Amit Sibbal, Ld. Sr.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued and emphasized the fact that provisions
of section 499 and 500 IPC related to the offence of defamation do not talk about actual victim who
had been actually defamed by any liable or slander. Rather it talks about "person aggrieved" and this
term itself is a matter of trial as the person who had been actually aggrieved by the publication of an
article cannot be identified unless suitable evidence to that effect had been adduced on record and
hence it was submitted by Ld. Sr. Counsel for the petitioner that the trial court was not justified in
M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd vs ) The State on 13 November, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/144953764/
8
denying this right to the petitioner to prove on record CR No. 57/2/14 16/32 M/s Jindal Steel &
Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
by adducing suitable evidence that it was actually falling within the definition of term " person
aggrieved" and not otherwise and thus, the Ld. MM had further erred in making the observations
purely based on surmises and conjectures motivated by her personal observations. 17 So far as the
locus standi of the petitioner to file such a complaint is concerned, Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the
petitioner has relied upon the ratio of the case in "Santosh Kumar Chatterjee v. Radhika Ranjan
Ghose & Anr", reported in 66 CWN 24, wherein it has been held as under:− "The contention that out
of the various modes described in Explanation 4 of section 499 IPC in which imputation to harm a
person's reputation may be made, only an imputation lowering the credit of the person is the mode
in which there can be any defamation of an association, is not correct. An association may also be
defamed by an imputation which lowers the moral character of the members of the association
collectively. In the instant case, that is what was done by the publication relating to the Students'
Welfare Association and therefore it amounted to defamation of the members of the association as
an association and as such the accused petitioner is guilty of the offence under section 500 of the
Indian Penal Code."
18 Similarly, reliance has also been placed on citation of case "John Thomas v. Dr. K. Jagdeesan"
(2001) 6 SCC 30, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under:
CR No. 57/2/14 17/32 M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
"Criminal Procedure Code, 1973--S. 199--
Defamation−−Locus standi to file complaint−−"Some person aggrieved by the offence"−−Even if the
libelous imputations are not made directly against a person but he has reasons to feel hurt on
account of the same, he has locus standi to file a complaint--Where defamatory publications are
made against a private limited company, its Director can file the complaint--Penal Code,1960, S.499
Expln. 2.
Held: The collection of the words "by some persons aggrieved in Section 199 definitely indicates that
the complaint need not necessarily be the defamed person himself. Whether the complainant has
reasons to feel hurt on account of the publication is a matter to be determined by the court
depending upon the facts of each case. If a company is described as engaging itself in nefarious
activities, its impact would certainly fall on every Director of the company and hence he can
legitimately feel the pinch of it. Similarly, if a firm is described in a publication as carrying on
offensive trade, every working partner of the firm can reasonably be expected to feel aggrieved by it.
As the hospital against which imputations were published in the present case is a private limited
company, it is too far−fetched to rule out any one of its Directors, feeling aggrieved on account of
pejoratives hurled at the company."
( Head Note:B) "The collection of the words "by some persons aggrieved" definitely indicates that
the complainant CR No. 57/2/14 18/32 M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd vs ) The State on 13 November, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/144953764/
9
need not necessarily be the defamed person himself. Whether the complainant has reasons to feel
hurt on account of the publication is a matter to be determined by the court depending upon the
facts of each case. If a company is described as engaging itself in nefarious activities its impact
would certainly fall on every Director of the company and hence he can legitimately feel the pinch of
it. Similarly, if a firm is described in a publication as carrying on offensive trade, every working
partner of the firm can reasonably be expected to feel aggrieved by it. If K.J. Hospital is a private
limited company, it is too far−fetched to rule out any one of its Directors, feeling aggrieved on
account of pejoratives hurled at the Company. Hence, the appellant cannot justifiably contend that
the Director of K.J. Hospital would not fall within the wide purview of "some person aggrieved" as
envisaged in Section 199(1) of the Code." ( Para 13 ) 19 So far as the plea of defence of fair reporting
as taken by Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 2 to 5 is concerned, Ld. Counsel for the
respondent has also relied upon the ratio of the case "Sewakram Sobhani v. R K Karanjia"
(1981)3SCC 208, very famous case, also commonly known as "Blitz case", which has also been relied
upon by the Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was
pleased to issue guidelines to the print media regarding reporting of matters and cautions to be
observed by them while reporting such cases and emphasis in this regard CR No. 57/2/14 19/32 M/s
Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
has been placed by the Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for petitioner on paras 11 and 12 of the judgment,
which are reproduced below:
"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 the 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 fact 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 the public good, or that it was made in good
faith." (Para 11) "The freedom of the journalist is an ordinary part of the freedom of
the subject, and to whatever lengths the subject in general may go, so also may the
journalist, but, apart from statute law, his privilege is no other and no higher. The
responsibilities which attach to this power in the dis−mentation of printed matter
may, and in the case of a conscientious journalist do, make him more careful; but the
range of his assertions, his criticisms, or his comments, is as wide as, and no wider
than, that of any other subject. No privilege attaches to his petition."
CR No. 57/2/14 20/32 M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
(Para 12 quoting the observations made by Lord Shaw in Arnold v. King Emperor (1913−14) 41 IA
149, 169.) 20 So far as the reasonings given by the Ld. MM in the impugned order related to the
rights of journalists and probable defence arising in their favour as considered by the Ld MM is
M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd vs ) The State on 13 November, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/144953764/
10
concerned, the Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the citation of
case titled "Balraj Khanna & ors v. Moti Ram" 1971(3) SCC 399, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had
categorically held that the questions related to the probable defences as provided in exceptions to
section 499 IPC cannot be considered by the Magistrate at the initial stage of summoning and it is
for the accused to take such defence during the trial and also to prove it in accordance with law. 21
The same was the view of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Shatrughna Prasad Sinha v. Rajbhau Surajmal
Rathi & ors." (1996) 6 SCC 263. 22 Now, if in the light of the aforesaid submissions and arguments
of the respective parties, the impugned order is examined to ascertain its correctness, legality and
propriety, then I have no hesitation in holding that the very perusal of the impugned order makes it
amply clear that it is a fit case where this court must exercise its revisional jurisdiction to set aside
the same as it suffers from various patent illegalities and irregularities committed by the Ld. MM
while passing the same, as a bare perusal of the articles in question against which the present
complaint was filed by the petitioner before CR No. 57/2/14 21/32 M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs
State & Ors.
the Ld. MM, makes it amply clear that the author of the same had cited and quoted the petitioner to
be a company solely owned by Naveen Jindal by regarding the petitioner as a company owned by
industrialist turned MP in the opening para of the said article.
23 In the second para of the said article at the bottom line at page 40 it was observed by the author
that his (referred to Naveen Jindal) company had been accused of getting coal filed allocated in
February 2009 with reserves of 1500 million metric tonnes in contraventions of rules and
regulations. Similarly, in the last concluding line of para 3 of the said article it had been mentioned
by the author that it was the petitioner company from whom the editors of Zee News had demanded
money in exchange for favor of not airing news on JSPL's Coalgate involvement and in the following
para the author had gone to the extent of making a remarks/observations in the following words:
"What is interesting however is how the counter sting has been successful in
replacing news stories about Jindal's involvement in Coalgate with stories of alleged
blackmailing by media outlets of companies. A diversionary coup by JSPL no doubt.
... JSPL has achieved its purpose by this counter sting. Nobody is talking about the
Coalgate scam worth thousands of crores now and all attention is on the Rs. 50 crore
allegedly demanded by a TV news outfit."
24 Further in the next following para, the author had written that even CR No. 57/2/14 22/32 M/s
Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
Naveen Jindal had continued to deny his involvement in the Coalgate block allotted to his company
which had come under the scanner in September this year (referring to year 2012) and in 2010, the
Jindal companies were also issued show cause notices for not carrying out any mining activities in
the awarded coal block.
25 The aforesaid observations have now been quoted in this order only as a passing reference.
M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd vs ) The State on 13 November, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/144953764/
11
26 Perusal of the entire article running into two pages goes to clearly show that the author had
frequently used the terms "Naveen Jindal" as well "JSPL" as substitutes for each other rather than
using them under correct legal parlance and even in the photo of Naveen Jindal as was appearing at
page 41 of the said article, he had been shown as Chairman of the company with a caption that
another coal mine block allotted to his company came under the scanner in September this year and
in the last concluding sentence of the said article, the author had raised the question which
remained to be answered, "whether scam money can really buy you true legitimacy?". 27 From the
perusal of the aforesaid entire article, it becomes an apparent truth on record that while quoting the
references as well as responses received not only from the editors of Zee News, i.e. Sudhir
Chaudhary and Samir Ahluwalia, the author of the said article had also gone far ahead to take the
version of one Ramesh Aggarwal, an alleged RTI activist who had leveled CR No. 57/2/14 23/32 M/s
Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
allegations against the petitioner's company entering into a conspiracy to get rid of him. Not only
this, but also, it is apparent that on the following page of this article of said magazine, it had also
published the interviews of Sudhir Chaudhary and Samir Ahluwalia in which again the aforesaid two
persons had not only given clarifications on their stand but also casted serious allegations on the
petitioner way of conducting the business as well as its reputation. 28 It is interesting to note here
itself that neither the author had claimed to have ever contacted the petitioner company for seeking
any clarification on the allegations leveled against it by various persons including the Zee News
editors as well as the said RTI activities nor it was claimed in the article that though sufficient
attempts were made by the author of the same to seek clarification from the petitioner company, but
it was the petitioner who had declined to respond to his request as well as all the allegations so
leveled against it were leveled single handedly without even caring or bothering to seek its stand on
the same.
29 Even the CAG in its report had not raised any issue of any irregularities committed by the
petitioner's company in acquiring the said coal mines and complete process and procedure of
allocation and allotment of coal mines is still under investigation under the supervision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and no conclusive finding till date has been reported in relation to any of
the alleged scams as had been cited in the said article. In the absence of any such CR No. 57/2/14
24/32 M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
judicial verdict having come on record in respect of any of the players in the said Coalgate scam, the
article in question, as cited, had convicted not only the petitioner but also its Chairman in a trial that
had been conducted and concluded by it alone and without even their being put to trial in any case
whatsoever before a competent court having jurisdiction over the matter in controversy. Thus, the
petitioner had been made a victim of Media−trial. 30 So far as the testimonies of CWs examined by
the petitioner before the Ld. MM and their impact is concerned, though Ld. MM had mentioned
about the same in brief, but nowhere in her impugned order, she had cited any reasons either for
believing or for disbelieving the evidence so adduced before her by the petitioner. Rather the Ld.
MM at page 8 of the impugned order was pleased to observe as under:
M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd vs ) The State on 13 November, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/144953764/
12
"... It cannot be stretched to include within its ambit the image or reputation of the
Chairman of the company with respect to his personal acts/conduct or comments
made by him unconnected to the discharge of his functions as the Chairman of the
company. Thus, any statements published in the articles regarding the personal
comments/opinion/conduct of Mr. Naveen Jindal regarding controversial Khap or
Caste Panchayat or regarding RTI Activist Mr. Ramesh Aggarwal are and should be
considered as beyond the purview of the present complaint."
31 Hence the aforesaid observations made it clear that the Ld. MM was not CR No. 57/2/14 25/32
M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
considering the personal life or acts, omissions or remarks of the person conducting the day−to−day
business affairs of the company, i.e. Managing Director or Chairman of the company. However, all
his acts as well as omissions, statements etc which were connected with discharge of his day−to− day
functions as Chairman of the petitioner company were bound to be taken into consideration by the
Ld. MM while applying her mind on the point of summoning of respondents herein which she had
miserably failed to do so and as she had also failed to appreciate the fact that the author was
frequently mentioning and substituting the petitioner company by Naveen Jindal and vice versa.
Hence it seems that while making such observations, the Ld. MM seems to have totally forgotten the
law on this aspect related to functions and responsibilities of the Chairman and Managing Director
of a Limited Company.
32 Further, I have no hesitation in holding that after reading the complete article in question, a
common person would have considered the acts of Naveen Jindal, as acts of the petitioner and vice−
versa, because of the petitioner company being owned by him as its owner and not merely being the
Chairman or Managing Directors thereof. The articles is required to be examined from the point of
view of a common, prudent and ordinary man and not from the point of view of a legal luminary
knowing the distinction between a company and its MD.
CR No. 57/2/14                                                                          
M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors. 
 33     Further, the Ld. MM was grossly erroneous in holding that intention to 
cause harm is the most essential "sine qua non"of the offence of defamation and while making the
said observation, the Ld. MM seems to have forgotten that in the definition of offence of
"defamation" as provided under section 499 IPC, it is not only the intention alone but also
knowledge or reasons for the author to believe that harm can be caused to the reputation which
would constitute such offence are also the factors for consideration to be kept in mind while
determining the issue related to commission of an offence of such nature or otherwise. Hence, Ld.
MM had committed grave error in relying upon the ingredient of "intention" alone for the purpose
of constituting an offence of defamation as defined under section 499 IPC. 34 Ld. MM had further
grossly erred in holding in the following para of the impugned order that the articles had only
conveyed general observations regarding a current topic of general/national interest and there was
nothing contained in the said articles which was especially meant to damage the reputation of the
M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd vs ) The State on 13 November, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/144953764/
13
complainant, whereas the perusal of the said article itself made it absolutely clear that specific
allegations were made against the petitioner as well as its alleged owner Naveen Jindal in the said
article and even otherwise also, there was no need for any special manner or specific meaning to be
given to the contents of the said article as even the general imputations aimed to tarnish a person's
reputation are sufficient enough to CR No. 57/2/14 27/32 M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State &
Ors.
prima facie constitute an offence of "defamation" as defined in the said section of IPC and in the last
para of page 9 of the impugned order, the Ld. MM had further exceeded her jurisdiction when she
had even gone to the extent of commenting upon and to make remarks and observations regarding
government's policy for allocation and allotment of coal blocks and she had otherwise no business to
make such observations, remarks and comments related to the Legislative policies which were not
even the subject matter of the controversy in issue before her and hence all those observations made
were clearly beyond her jurisdiction.
35 Further, from the perusal of the impugned order, it is reflected that at page 10 thereof, the Ld.
MM had got herself carried away by her own surmises and conjectures and had also taken into
consideration the probable defences of the respondents wherein she had observed that " In
Democratic India, media has virtually evolved as the fourth pillar of the Constitution and plays a
very vital role in forming public opinion in favour of or against the government policies and in
exposing or surfacing the corrupt practices where they exists. This helps in assessing the
performance of the government on the anvil of honesty, integrity, efficiency and public interest, by
the electorate. In the present case, whether the ministry of coal adhered to fair practices in
allocation of coal blocks to the companies or was guided by some other external or extraneous
factors is a matter of public and CR No. 57/2/14 28/32 M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
national interest as the hard earned money of the tax payers as well as a valuable natural resources
of the country are involved. " 36 In this regard, firstly, it is to be noted that as observed herein
above, the Ld. MM had no business at all to make any such comments or observations in respect of
Government's policy decisions which were not even under challenge before her and thus she had
clearly exceeded her jurisdiction because even the CAG in its report quoted by the petitioner before
it as a mere passing reference had also not talked about any scam being committed in allocation of
those mines by the Government to any of the Stake holders much less the petitioner. All that CAG
had opined in the said report was that if some transparency could have been observed and allocation
would have been made by bidding system, then it could have fetched more revenue to the
Government and would also have prevented the concentration of wealth in a fewer hands. However,
CAG, no where had leveled any allegation of any corrupt or malpractice on the part of either
petitioner or Government being adopted in making the said allotment/allocation of the coal mines
at any point of time whatsoever.
37 Further, though the Ld. MM had observed in the impugned order that law of defamation could
not be used as a weapon to silence the critics, but she had also lost sight of the fact as to whether the
impugned articles were written only as an innocent expression of opinion of the author or were
written to be CR No. 57/2/14 29/32 M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd vs ) The State on 13 November, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/144953764/
14
used as a tool to take revenge from the petitioner and its Board of Directors for their actions of
prosecuting the officials of media houses for the offence of extortion and black mailing.
38 Further, I find that Ld. MM had erroneously held that the author of the article had no knowledge
that it was likely to cause harm to the petitioner because the article per−se contained factually
unproved assertions and at the end of it, it had virtually amounted to announcing a verdict against
the petitioner and its Managing Director when it had observed that the money earned by scam,
could not have brought true legitimacy to any one (referring to Naveen Jindal getting a School of
Management at University of Texas and Dallas (UTD) being named in his name).
39 It is to be noted here that till date, no competent court in the country had given any judicial
verdict regarding illegal money either being invested or extracted from those allocation of coal
blocks.
40 Further, I find that the Ld. MM had failed to exercise her jurisdiction in a judicious manner when
she had gone to the extent of observing that " the court has to protect the media as they have a
moral, legal and social duty to perform, if what is published is in public interest or public good and
is based on a factual report which though may be capable of being perceived differently by different
individuals." and in the last para as appearing at page 11 of the impugned order and from the
observations made CR No. 57/2/14 30/32 M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
therein, it seems that the Ld. MM had gone to the extent of giving weightage to the media trial of the
accused conducted by big media houses and while doing so, the Ld. MM had completely ignored the
fact that such media trials were not based on a judicial verdict given by the court of law in the
country on the issues raised and agitated before them. Hence, I also find further findings of the Ld.
MM to be grossly erroneous which are appearing at opening para at page 12 of the impugned order
which are as under:
" One must not forget that the country is striding towards an era where the right to
information and the right to know have been given statutory backing and are
constantly evolving. In these circumstances, any action towards gagging the free
media would push the country back to the colonial dark ages of closed doors and
hushed up voices."
41 However, I have no hesitation in holding that such articles published without verification of the
facts from the side against whom such publications were made are clearly per−se derogatory and
defamatory in nature and are even contempts of the superior court's directions as contained in the
Blitz's case (supra), as discussed above, which judgment still holds good in respect of setting guiding
principles for the print media in reporting any matter through such articles in public interest.
42 In view of the above lengthy discussion, I have no hesitation in holding CR No. 57/2/14 31/32
M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd vs ) The State on 13 November, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/144953764/
15
that the impugned order as passed by the Ld. MM, is not sustainable in law as it suffers from vital
illegalities and irregularities. 43 Accordingly the revision petition, as filed by the petitioner is
allowed and the the impugned order is set aside as prima facie there is sufficient material to
summon the respondents no. 2 to 5 for the offences committed by them and also to put them to trial
for the same.
44 The case is remanded back to the Ld. Trial Court through Ld. CMM, New Delhi with direction to
the Ld. MM to summon the accused persons for the offences under section 500 IPC and thereafter
pass a final judgment after appreciating the entire evidence which shall be brought on record to her
notice by the respective parties at the appropriate stages of trial. 39 TCR, if any, be sent back to the
Ld. Trial Court alongwith a copy of the order.
40 File of the revision petition be consigned to record room after completion of all other necessary
formalities.
Announced in the open Court on 13.11.2014 (LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA) ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE−04 NEW DELHI DISTRICT/ PATIALA HOUSE COURTS/NEW DELHI CR No.
57/2/14 32/32 M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors.
M/S Jindal Steel & Power Ltd vs ) The State on 13 November, 2014
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/144953764/
16