IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATRUE OF PATAN Cr. Misc. No. 427 of 2008 SHASHI RANJAN, S/O. SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD, UNIT MANAGER, SAHARA INDIA, MASS COMMUNICATION, SHADE NO. 1/4, PATLIPUTRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PATNA. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, having its office at present at Indira Bhawan, 6th and 7th Floor, Ram Charitra Singh Path, Boring Road, P.S. Srikrishnapuri, District – Patna through its Assistant Development Officer Shri Indubhooshan ------------ 07/ 07.07.2010 This is a petition for quashing the order dated 17.07.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2292(M) of 2007 whereby and whereunder cognizance of offence under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 14 of the Press Registration of Book Act, 1867 has been taken. The complainant is Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority established under department of Industry, Government of Bihar through its Assistant Development Officer, Sri Indubhooshan (without parentage) who has been added as opposite party no. 2. The petitioner alleged to be Printer and Reporter responsible for publication of a news item published on 15.07.2007 in the daily news paper Rashtriya Sahara Hindi Edition, Patna. The grievance of the complainant is regarding the news item published on 15.07.2007 in a daily news paper, namely, Rashtriya Sahara Hindi Edition, Patna and it has been alleged in the complaint that false allegation relating to “cancellation of plots 2 of industrialist being done by BIADA as “BIADA wish manner” and the false statement given by accused no. 1 Balraj Kapoor, convenor of Bihar Udyog Bachao Morcha. It is further alleged that the said news is false, defamatory, scandalous and malicious to defame the complainant as the action taken by the BIADA only against those unit who did not act and perform as per BIADA Act and Rules and the accused persons printed the false news who are duty bound to verify the fact before publishing. On the said complaint the cognizance has been taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 17.07.2007, the day complaint was filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a press conference was convened by accused no. 1 Balraj Kapoor and whatever reported by him was published without adding, subtracting or subscribing his view to give proper coverage. It is right of freedom of press enshrined under Article 19(1) in good faith and no allegation in the complaint that Mr. Balraj Kapoor did not make such statement and the news published does not mention the name of any individual to harm the reputation of any of the particular individual member associated with BIADA and further the complainant or any of the member associated with the authority (BIADA) never sought to contradict the news item nor made any request for a corrigendum or correction or clarification and further the allegation made or published does not make out an offence under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502/34 of the Indian 3 Penal Code against the petitioner and Section 14 of the Press Registration of Book Act, 1867 and further the public body in action are open to criticism and has relied upon decision reported in 1976 BBCJ 30 (Asha Parekh, Navin Nischal, Devan Verma, Ashit Sen & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), 2000(2) PLJR 467 (Uttam Sengupta & Ors. Vs. Bihar Public Service Commission & Anr.) and AIR 1956 (SC) 541 (Kartar Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab). None appeared on behalf of the opposite party when the case was called out. From the news item published in daily news paper “Rastriya Sahara” which has been annexed as Annexure – II which is basis for the complaint, however, mentions that the press conference was convened by the convenor Balraj Kapoor and has reported about the cancellation of the land allotted to the entrepreneurs wrongly against which one day demonstration by Dharna is being organized on 16th July in which the industrialist/ entrepreneurs of the entire State and their employees shall participate. Hence, the news item published is in two parts that the authority cancelling the allotment of land and the second part a demonstration is to be organized by the entrepreneurs for said cancellation. However, to the second part does not appear to be any defamation. However, the allegation is that the cancellation of allotted land in wrong manner and alleged in complaint in BIADA wish manner. However, this allegation of BIADA wish manner 4 may be said to have been an imputation. However, a question for consideration whether for the said imputation by Balraj Kapoor, accused no. 1 published to give coverage, the petitioner who is the Printer or Correspondent gave the coverage, is responsible to warrant prosecution for defamation. The freedom of press which is enshrined under Article 19(1) gives a freedom of speech and expression and further the press has also a public duty to ventilate the abuses and the news paper would absolutely within its rights in publishing the fact, even derogatory to such officials if official act is in discharge of their public duty. However, this freedom of expression is subject to limitation that the news published ought to have got verified so as to be watchful not to publish false and frivolous allegation and further the reasonable restriction is in the interest of sovereignty, morality, decency, contempt of Court and defamation to the offence under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the correspondence of a news paper may not weigh the material and may be excused for a little exaggeration as they are like a watchdog of National interest and public welfare. However, it has been contended that no allegation has been made against any particular person or individual but Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for defamation when the allegation regarding any publication regarding imputation which harms or intends to harm reputation of any person. However, the person may be interpreted to be an 5 association of person concerning the authority. In view of second explanation of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code the persons associated with BIADA can well be identified as the persons affected by the imputation regarding cancellation of land allotted to the entrepreneurs in a not proper manner. However, it is accused no. 1 who has reported in press conference but the petitioner being instrumental in publication may be fastened with a responsibility as it was his duty to verify before printing the same. However, the news item as described in two parts, the first part is about the cancellation and the second part with regard to staging a demonstration for said cancellation of land as BIADA wish manner and the only part which give imputation is cancellation in BIADA wish manner but the coverage given in news item did not mention the name of any individual member suggest the coverage given in good faith, regarding the staging of Dharna or demonstration in connection of cancellation of land to entrepreneur may attract 2nd and 9th explanation of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the complaint has been filed by the BIADA as distinct from the individual as none of the individual member comes forward to allege about harm of their reputation of the alleged act and the BIADA a public body created under law may not maintain prosecution for any criticism against it as it is distinct from individual. It is true publication of the report indicating the BIADA but the individual member required to claim regarding 6 their loss of reputation as BIADA is distinct from individual. However, the news item was published but does not mention the name of any of the individual or their act regarding cancellation of plot in proper manner and only mentions that the BIADA is cancelling though second explanation of 499 cover imputation against member of BIADA but the individual member require to prosecute and to come with case of their loss of reputation but instead of individual member BIADA has filed complaint which is distinct from individual. However, public authority is subject to public criticism in the discharge of their official duty. Moreover, before filing the complaint even no contradiction was sought nor any request made for corrigendum, correction or clarification. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relied upon decisions in decision reported in 1976 BBCJ 30 (Asha Parekh, Navin Nischal, Devan Verma, Ashit Sen & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). The grievance of the complainant for depicting a scene and dialogue which alleged to have adversely affected the lawyers as a class against their professional conduct and it was held that central theme was not about the character of advocate as a person but it was only a side issue which was not intended to harm the reputation of the lawyers as a class. However, here under the facts and circumstances, the real issues is that the demonstration was for cancellation of plot and the said has arisen, then it has to be stated that their allegation is not proper that 7 cancellation is not proper in view of decision reported in 2000(2) PLJR 467 (Uttam Sengupta & Ors. Vs. Bihar Public Service Commission & Anr.). It was alleged that some imputations were made to the commission and it was held that the said news item was not intending to harm the reputation and even assuming that some of the statements amount to imputation against the commission or its Chairman the same appears to have been made in good faith regarding the conduct and functioning of the commission covered under the second exception. Taking into consideration the observation of the Cockburn, C.J. that those who feel a public position must not be too thin skinned in reference to comments made upon him and further in decision reported in AIR 1956 (SC) 541 (Kartar Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab) there was allegation of shout slogans in defamatory manner alleged to have been directed against the Transport Minister and Chief Minister, the conviction and sentence has been set aside and it has been held whoever holds a public position, must accept an attack as a necessary, though unpleasant, appendage to his office and public men in such position may as well think it will ignore vulgar criticism and abuses hurled against them rather they given an importance to the same. However, reverting back to the facts and circumstance of the case that press conference was convened by the accused no. 1 Balraj Kapoor by the complainant which was published and the petitioner is Printer. There is neither allegation that the said 8 statements were not the statement of Balraj Kapoor nor any allegation in complaint that the said statement was twisted or tampered nor name of any individual member was mentioned and hence the said news item was not intended to harm the reputation and even assign that the statement amounts to reputation the same appear to be in good faith and further no contradiction was sought by the complainant and further none of the individual member of BIADA has joined as complainant nor alleged about the harm of reputation to any individual member and the BIADA is distinct from individual to claim loss of reputation under 2nd and 9th explanation and further BIADA, a public body created under law may not maintain a prosecution for any criticism against it as it is distinct from individual and further public bodies in its action are open to criticism and the observation of Cockburn C.J. that public authority ought not to be too thin skinned in reference to the comment made upon them as public body and its action are open to criticism and hence, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and for the reasons mentioned above I am of the opinion that the order taking cognizance against the petitioner and the prosecution against the petitioner are abuse of the process of the court and the impugned order and prosecution with regard to the petitioner is hereby quashed and the application is accordingly allowed. Kundan (Gopal Prasad, J.)