IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1645 OF 2009 Gautam Patel ..Applicant Vs. Mrs.Pramila Thakkar and others. ..Respondents Mr.Shirish Gupte, Sr.Advocate i/b. Mr.Subhash Desai, Advocate for applicant. Ms.S.V.Gajare, APP For respondent State. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : 2 nd May, 200 9 P.C. 1 Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for applicant. The Applicant is complainant, who filed a private complaint against the respondents no.1 to 9 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation of the defamation is based on news items appearing in news papers which are at page Nos.92, 93 and 94 of this application. The learned Magistrate issued process on the said private complaint filed by the applicant. In Revision Application preferred by the Respondent No.1 to 9, the Sessions Court has interfered and has passed an order dismissing the complaint filed by the applicant. 2 The first submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant is that by the impugned judgment and order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has purported the exercise powers under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which could have been exercised only by the learned Magistrate. He submitted that at the most the case could have been sent back by the Additional Sessions Judge to learned Magistrate. Secondly, he invited my attention to alleged defamatory news items which have been published at the instance of respondent nos.1 to 9 who are members of the Managing Committee of a Co-operative Housing Society. He pointed out that the applicant has been described in the news item as a member of `Mafia’. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge committed a gross error by interfering with the order of learned Magistrate of issue of process. 3 I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the relevant documents. The respondents have been described in the complaint as office bearers of the Managing Committee of a Co-operative Housing Society. The allegations of defamation are based on three news items. The first is dated 12th January,2008 titled as “Senior Citizens spend a day in police lock-up”. On plain reading of the said news item it appears that the same is the purely a news item based on happenings of certain events. There is nothing to show that said news item was published at the instance of the respondents no.1 to 9. The same is the case with second news item. The second news item records the statement of applicant that he was fighting injustice by following process of law. The said news item records that some of the respondents were arrested on the complaint filed by the applicant. The said news item records interview of the applicant himself. The said news item further records that 150 residents of Vithalnagar Co-operative Society held a candlelight vigil at Juhu gymkhana to express solidarity with two office bearers of the society who were arrested by the police. It also records a statement of a former Sheriff of Bombay that police should have thought twice before arresting the two persons. 4 The third new item also records that the Chairperson and Secretary of Vithalnagar Cooperative Housing Society were arrested on the basis of complaint filed by present applicant. It is stated that said two persons spent two nights in police lock-up. It also records that said Chairperson and Secretary refused to speak of their trauma. A statement of one Mohan Jain, a neighbour finds place in the said news item. It also refers to certain statements by police officers and lastly it refers to a statement of members of Managing Committee that the said Committee has decided not to succumb to such tactics and that all of them are together in fight against unscrupulous builder. 5 Taking the news items as it is, it is impossible to come to a conclusion that the news items were published are at the instance of respondents no.1 to 9. It must be noted that applicant has not proceeded against the news reporter, editor or the publisher of news paper. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions that no case was made out to proceed against the respondents no.1 to 9 for the commission of offence punishable under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code is a correct view. As far as first submission is concerned, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was exercising revisional jurisdiction. Once the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that there was no case made out for proceeding against the accused, he was entitled to set aside the order of learned Magistrate and to substitute it by correct order of dismissal of complaint. 6 Hence, no case is made out for interference. Criminal Application is accordingly rejected. It is made clear that the observations made in this order relate only to the alleged role of the respondent nos.1 to 9 as regards impugned news items. [ A. S. Oka, J. ] appl1645-09