Ladda 1 wp-420-02.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 420 of 2002. Shri Kamtam Annamayya Sudarshan ...PETITIONER Versus Editor Maharashtra Times and others ...RESPONDENTS. ...... Mr P.M. Pradhan, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt Mugdha Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 to 7. Mrs M.R.Tidke, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: A.R.JOSHI, J. Date reserved for order : 8th April,2011. Date for Pronouncement of order:- 6th May, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard rival submissions for some time. 2. Nothing much was argued orally and both the contesting parties filed written submissions and left it to the Court to pass appropriate orders disposing of the criminal writ petition. 3. Present writ petition is preferred by the original complainant who had earlier lodged private complaint bearing C.C. No. 610/M/2001, 33rd Ladda 2 wp-420-02.doc Court, Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai against ten accused persons for taking action against them for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). The said complaint was dismissed by the concerned M.M.Court under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) holding that there was no sufficient material brought on record to proceed in the matter for offence punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C. against the accused persons. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint, present Writ Petition was filed in March, 2002. Said dismissal order was passed on 1st December, 2001. 4. Prior to appreciating the rival written submissions, the case of the original complainant can be narrated, in short, in order to have proper perspective of the matter and in order to ascertain whether interference in the order of dismissal of the criminal complaint is warranted. 5. The petitioner – original complainant is presently a retired Government Employee. During July, 1998 he was working as Regional Deputy Director, Handlooms, Powerlooms and textile. Some time in June, 1998 the order was passed by the office suspending him from his service. Said order was served on him in July, 1998. According to the petitioner, prior to passing such order of suspension, he was never informed in writing or orally regarding proceeding to be taken against Ladda 3 wp-420-02.doc him for suspension. According to the complainant, some time by the end of June, 1998 present Respondent No.1 has passed confidential orders suspending about nine officers including the present petitioner and disciplinary action was contemplated against all the officers who were then handling different Leather Co-operative Societies. It was also contemplated that some criminal action would also be taken against such officers including the present petitioner. Suspension order against the petitioner came to be passed in view of the provisions of Rule 4 (c) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1979. Said order of suspension was published by present Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Editor and Press Reporter of daily newspaper ‘Maharashtra Times’, Marathi Edition, Mumbai in the daily newspaper of 8th July, 1998. According to the petitioner, in the said news item wild and defamatory allegations were made against the petitioner regarding his suspension. According to the petitioner, even by that time of 8th July, 1998 the said order was not even served on the petitioner or communicated to him. However, according to the complainant, subsequently he came to know that in fact such suspension order was passed on 29.6.1998. 6. According to the petitioner, the said news item in Maharashtra Times – daily newspaper reported that the petitioner who was then Ladda 4 wp-420-02.doc working as Regional Deputy Director, Handlooms, Powerlooms and Textile had in some proceeding served a notice u/s 78 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and had subsequently withdrawn the same and for that purpose he had accepted some illegal gratification. It is further mentioned in the news item that the petitioner had taken post dated cheques from the office bearers and subsequently returned the cheques after getting the amount in cash from the concerned party for withdrawal of such notice. According to the petitioner, such news item was published by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 without any basis and only in order to cause disrepute to the petitioner and to bring down his reputation and cause grave injury to his career. 7. Allegedly, according to the petitioner, all the respondents connived with each other and with common intention caused the said news item to be published and as such he had preferred the complaint before the concerned M.M.Court for taking action against all the respondents for the offence punishable under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. The learned M.M.,Court No.33 dismissed the complaint by order dated 1st December, 2011 under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. as there was no sufficient material placed before the Court to proceed in the matter to Ladda 5 wp-420-02.doc issue even the process for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the I.P.C. against the accused persons. 9. In the written submissions, it is mentioned on behalf of the Petitioner that when the news item was published in the newspaper there was no any criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner and there was no evidence against the petitioner having accepted illegal gratification and as such the entire news item was concocted and based on imagination and apparently thus attributing intention on the part of the respondents to harm the reputation of the petitioner. On this context, it appears that there was nothing brought before the learned Magistrate as to the falsity or otherwise of the contents of the newspaper publication and nothing brought by the petitioner to substantiate that criminal proceedings were not initiated against him. In this context, 9th exception in Section 499 of I.P.C.is of relevance which reads:- Exception 9 : It is not a defamation to make an imputation on the character of another, provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of interest of the person making it or of any other person or for the public good. Ladda 6 wp-420-02.doc 10. In this connection, a reference to the case – Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1966 SC 97 can be made with advantage. “The Supreme Court case relates to a news paper report alleging that the then Chief Minister’s son had been indulging into smuggling activities across the border. From time to time the newspapers of the Punjab were publishing a news about the misdeeds being indulged in by a Minister’s son. A Press note then was published by the Government denying the allegation and challenging the newspaper managements to come out of the veil of anonymity by naming the son of the Minister. The accused thereon published that one S, the son of the then Chief Minister of the Punjab was the author of the misdeeds. Delhi Criminal Court and Delhi High Court convicted him. But Supreme Court acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 500 I.P.C. GAJENDRA GADKAR,C.J. held that Exception 9 to Section 499 provides that it is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another, provided the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or for any other person or for the public good.” 11. While making reference to the above case, it has not been lost sight of the fact that it is the onus on the respondent to establish that Ladda 7 wp-420-02.doc his case is coming under any of the exceptions to section 499 of I.P.C. and no doubt the requirement of good faith and public good are both to be satisfied. However, when there was no such material brought before the learned M.M.Court as to the news item was prima facie false and was published with intention to harm the reputation of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the order of the learned M.M.Court was erroneous and required to be interfered now. 12. It is apparent that there was no material produced before the learned M.M.Court by the petitioner that other respondents had provided any information through Respondent No.3 to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and that all the respondents were in collusion with each other to malign the character of the petitioner. 13. Considering the above submission and prima facie no material before the learned M.M.Court to take action against the accused persons for issuance of process for the offence under Section 500 of I.P.C., in the opinion of this Court, there is nothing to interfere with the said order in the writ jurisdiction. In the result, present writ petition is dismissed and accordingly disposed of. Rule stands discharged accordingly. (A.R.JOSHI, J.)