IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3830 of 2005() ------------------------- CC.158/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, MATTANNUR .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- 1. V.S.ACHUTHANANDAN, CHIEF EDITOR, DESHABHIMANI DIALY, KANNUR. 2. P.KARUNAKARAN, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, DESHABHIMANI DAILY, A.K.G.MEMORIAL PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CO.PVT.LTD., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.BALACHANDRAN (MANGALATH) SRI.RAJESH NAIR SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE ---------------------------------- 1. KUNNUMMAL PAVITHRAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, KOLARI AMSOM, KALOOR DESOM, MATTANNUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- Crl.M.C.3830/2005 -------------------- Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.158/2004 pending on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mattannur are the petitioners herein. C.C.No.158/2004 is concerned with a complaint filed by the first respondent herein alleging an offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34 IPC. The alleged defamatory statements are contained in Annexure-A which is a news item carried by the Desabhimani daily on 15.2.2004. The gist of the said news item is to the effect that the persons who are involved in the business of money lending, imposing various rates of interest (colloquially referred to as blade companies) are again establishing their business in the Malabar area. Reference is specifically made to a complaint lodged by one Ibrahimkutty against one Kunnummal Pavithran namely the complainant herein. The news item further goes on to say that Ibrahimkutty had taken a loan of Rs.35,000/- from Pavithran and in spite of having paid back an amount of Rs.24,000/-, there was a Crl.M.C.3830/2005 2 further demand for Rs.1,61,000/-. Apparently the property belonging to the mother of Ibrahimkutty was then given as security and thereafter litigation came to be instituted in relation to the said property in 1998. 2. The complainant alleges that the actual state of affairs was not verified by the accused. There is also an allegation that the imputation made against the complainant is false. There is a further assertion that the news item has resulted in lowering the reputation of the complainant in the estimation of the general public. 3. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the petitioners in this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. There are two grounds which are put forth. It is firstly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that news item would come within the fourth explanation to Section 499 of IPC. I am afraid, I am not in a position to agree with the submission. On a reading of the news item as such, it is possible for a person to allege that his reputation Crl.M.C.3830/2005 3 has been lowered by reason of the said publication. The question as to whether it is actually defamatory or not, would obviously have to await the trial of the case. At any rate it cannot be decided at this stage under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submits that the complaint does not contain any specific allegation as against the second accused namely the first petitioner herein, that he was the Chief editor of the newspaper at the relevant time. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complaint must be read in conjunction with the sworn statement. This may be correct, but nevertheless on a reading of the complaint along with the sworn statement, it is difficult to find out a specific allegation as regards the second accused, which will satisfy the ingredients of Section 499 of IPC. Admittedly, the second accused was the Chief editor. No doubt, there is an allegation that the third accused had published the news item in the newspaper of the Crl.M.C.3830/2005 4 second accused. The complaint does not contain a specific allegation that the second accused had verified the veracity of the news item knowing that it was false and that the news item actually came to be published without his knowledge, since he was the Chief editor of the news paper and that apart from his responsibilities as a Chief editor, he was clearly aware of the publication as such. There is a specific allegation to the above effect in so far as the third accused is concerned. In these circumstances, I am of the view that continuance of the proceedings before the Court below as against the second accused may not really be justified. It would amount to an abuse of process but it cannot be so said as regards the third accused. 5. For all these reasons, Crl.M.C is allowed in part. Proceedings in C.C.No.158/2004 are quashed in so far as it concerns the second accused namely the first petitioner herein. But it is made clear that the proceedings shall continue as regards accused Nos.1 Crl.M.C.3830/2005 5 and 3. It is also made clear that any observation that I have made here as regards the third accused is obviously a tentative expression of opinion at this stage under Section 482 of the Code and obviously the third accused will be entitled to take up any contention that is available to him in law in this regard by defending himself in the proceedings before the Court below. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs