ORDER
K.R. Prasada Rao, J.
1. All these petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking for quashing of the proceedings in CC. 17128/96 pending in the Court of VII Addl. C.M.M. Bangalore City, against the petitioners.
2. The petitioner in Crl.P. No. 333/97 is the Managing Editor of the Indian Express at Bombay. Petitioners in Crl. P.No. 339/97 are the Resident Editor and Publisher of Indian Express at Bangalore. Petitioner in Crl. P. No. 372/97 is the Chief Editor of Indian Express at New Delhi. The respondent herein filed a private complaint in the Court of VII Addl. C.M.M. Bangalore, against the petitioners and one Dr. K. Venkatagirigowda for the offences punishable under Section 500, 501 r/w Section 120(B) of IPC with the allegation that the petitioners got published in the newspaper Indian Express two news items dated 27-11-1996 and 28-11-1996 making-imputations against him and other family members, which are defamatory in nature. The respondents alleged that the imputations in the said two news items which are extracted in para 6 of the complaint are totally false and malicious and all the petitioners and A-1 were well aware that the said imputations are false. The Complainant, his brothers and sisters have never acted as brokers in respect of any dealing leading to corruption as alleged. The allegation that the complainant has acquired wealth by illegal and corrupt means is also false, when the assets have been acquired by him was acquired in lawful manner and the same is transparent. The allegation that the complainant is involved in granite scandal or that he built black assets are false. The allegation that he owns a house at Padmanabhanagar is also false. It is true that the complainant is building a nursing home, but borrowed loan from bank for the said purpose and the said transaction is found in Income-tax returns. It is also alleged in the complaint that the imputations concerning the complainant are per se defamatory and that they have been made maliciously with the object of injuring the reputation of the complainant in the estimation of the members of the public. In an attempt to tarnish the imgage of the whole family, such imputations are made even concerning to mother of the complainant. Respondent/Complainant therefore, filed the abovesaid complaint in the trial Court. Learned Magistrate has taken the cognisance of the offences alleged and after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, ordered for registering the case against the petitioners and A-1 and for issuance of process against them by an order dated 11-12-1996. Petitioners therefore, approached this court by filing these petitions seeking for quashing all the above proceedings against them.
3. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on both sides.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the following contentions for quashing the above proceedings.
i) The respondent is not the person aggrieved within the meaning of the word as indicated under Section 199 Cr.P.C. in respect of the above news items published and he has no locus standi to file the above complaint.
ii) In respect of the very same publication, which is in issue in the case, a complaint is filed before the Court of Dist. and Sessions Judge, New Delhi, on 12-12-1996 in Crl. Complaint No. 1/96 by the Public Prosecutor and the learned Sessions Judge having taken cognisance of the offences, ordered for registration of the case for the offences under Sub-section 500, 501, r/w Section 120-B and 34 IPC and has directed to issue process against the author and publisher of the two books, who is Accused No. 1 and the same matter is pending for trial. So, the present complaint for the same offence on the basis of the same cause of action is not maintainable.
iii) Petitioners are not the authors of the above news items published in Indian Express and that they are not in any manner responsible for publication of the said news items. Even the editor of the paper who published the said news items is not the author of the said news items, since the said news items are based on the matter published in two books by Accused No. 1, who is the author and publisher of the said books.
5. In reply to the above submissions, learned counsel for the respondent contended as under :-
i) There is a reference to the present respondent in the above news items published, which are per se defamatory in nature and he is therefore, entitled to file the complaint as the person aggrieved in respect of the said publication.
ii) There are clear allegations in the complaint to the effect that accused No. 1 who got the news items published and Accused Nos. 2 to 5 who are the Editor, Managing Editor, Chief Editor and Resident Editor of the news papers are responsible for the, publication of the said items and all of them entered into criminal conspiracay to defame the complainant and his family members and in pursuance of the conspiracy, two books are published and contents of the same are again republished in the Indian Express and therefore, all the accused have committed the above referred offences.
According to him, in view of the above specific allegations made in the complaint, it cannot be contended by the petitioners that there are no grounds to proceed against them for the above referred offences and that the proceedings are liable to be quashed against them.
6. I shall now consider the merits of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel appearing on the both sides with reference to the material placed on record. The news items published in Indian Express, Bangalore Edition dated 26-11-1996 and 28-11-1996 by accused No. 2 Mr. Vivek Goyanka, as the Editor of the said paper at Bangalore, who is the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 333/97 are to the following effect :-
26-11-1996
GOWDA IS THE KING OF CORRUPTION, SAYS EX-MP IN BOOK.
Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda has been referred to as “The Super Sukh Ram of India” in a book authored by former Member of Parliament and economist Prof. K. Venkatagiri Gowda which was released recently.
In his book “The King of Corruption and the Unmaking of India”, which Prof. Venkatagiri Gowda has dedicated to two former dictactors of South Korea Chun Doo Hwan and his successor Roh Re Woo, the author hopes that the death sentence and life imprisonment awarded to the two by a Seoul Court would serve as a stern warning to the “predatory political fatcats of India like the Deve Gowdas, Sukh Rams, Laloos, Satish Sharmas and other Hawala-tainted heroes”.
According to Prof. Gowda, the book was not built on hearsay, gossip or street talk but founded on documents of “undubltable authenticity.
There are three official reports on his (Mr. Deve Gowda’s) land grabbing adventures all of which have found him guilty malfeasance and misuse of authority and political clout”. Prof. Gowda says in his preface.
Mr. Deve Gwoda, who enjoyed cordial relations with successive Chief Ministers, managed to have the reports shelved in the archives of the Vidhana Soudha. “I was able to lay hands on these reports which, for the most part, serve as source material for this slender volume,” he says.
If I am found to be guilty of malfeasance against the Prime Minister and his family members, I welcome any punishment which parliament, in its supreme wisdom, will be pleased to award”, he says.
The 70-pages book itself was written by the retired Economics Professor-turned politician as a supplementary volume to his earlier book “From Order to anarchy”. The volume also carries pictures of some of Mr. Deve Gowda’s properties in the city
Pressing Mr. Deve Gowda’s humble origins as a “petty” civil contractor at Hardanahalli village in Holenarasipur Taluk in Hassan Dist., the book goes into details of his entry into politics, his role as the leader of the Opposition in Devaraj Urs Government his rise to the post of Public Works Minister, Chief Minister of the State and elevation as Prime Minister of the Country.
As leader of the Opposition, Mr. Deve Gowda was given a sum of money by the then Chief Minister Devaraj Urs for payment towards a BDA site in Rajmahal extension. Only on the previous day, Mr. Gowda had lambasted Mr. Urs. in the assembly, book says.
As the Public Works Minister in Ramakrishna Hegde’s Cabinet, Mr. Deve Gowda transported building material to Hole Narasipur where he had a cinema theatre constructed. The relations between Mr. Hegde and Mr. Deve Gowda turned sour when Mr. Hegde refused to sanction an extra Rs. 300 crore to the Public Works Department, the book says.
Alleging that Mr. Deve Gowda owned “ill got” wealth valued at Rs. 1,000. Prof. Gowda goes on to say that the Prime Minister’s family was a party to all his “mis-deeds”.
Mr. Deve Gowda’s sons and daughters who function as brokers between their father and those who seek official favours, get hard cash which they used to builtup black assets like palatial buildings, sites in affluent localities, hospitals, nursing homes and petrol bunks”, the book alleges.
As a Chief Minister, Mr. Deve Gowda brought about an amendment to the Land Reforms Act, in order to “help builders, developers and promoters.
Immediately, after being sworn in as the Prime Minister, Mr Deve Gowda came to the city to denotify hundreds of acres of Government lands which were meant for housing land and public utility services, thereby restoring ownership to private owners, the book says.
After assuming the office of Prime Minister, Mr. Gowda allegedly bought a theatre for Rs. 70 lakhs, a palatial building belonging to former town municipality president for Rs. 34 lakh and also struck a deal for the 3,500 acre with kadumane coffee for Rs. 300 crore.
Calling for an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the affairs, the book also accuses the Prime Minister of receiving kickbacks in the Cogentrix power deal, which was passed two days after Mr. Deve Gowada assumed Prime Ministership.
(Underlining supplied by me)
28-11-1996
P. M. TOUCHES RAO’s FEET FOR HIS SURVIVAL : FORMER MP’S BOOK :
Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda, whose Government is dependent on outside support makes frequent piligrimages to the former Congress President P. V. Narasimha Rao to “touch his feet and to propiate him to continue to shower his blessings,” according to a book authored by Former Member of Parliament and economist K. Venkatagiri Gowda.
In the book “From Order to Anarchy. Politics and Economics of the United Front Government” – Dedicated to former Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri “a symbol of honesty, dedication and patriotism” – Prof Gowda devotes an entire chapter to Mr. Deve Gowda.
In the chapter titled “H.H. Deve Gowda A Profile of Corruption, Chicanery, Vindictive-ness and Cowardice,” the author makes references to the Prime Minister’s riustic background, his linguistic ability, eating habits,electoral contests, the history of Mr. Gowda’s “sheeted sons”, “black assets” accumulated by his family and his feet-touching politics”.
In the 360 page volume released in October this year, the author says, “Mr, Gowda is adept in the art of feet touching. This is his mode of winning friends and influencing people. He touches the feet of the Congress President every time to cajole him to ensure this survival as Prime Minister.” Alleging that the “feet touching politics,” had paid Mr. Gowda rich dividends, he adds that the Prime Minister is “not sincere in these ceremonies”. “When he reaches political heights and when he is convinced that he does not need anybody’s support, he lets them down like hot potatoes,” the book says.
Alleging that Mr. Gowda’s family had illegally acquired property in various parts of the State-including in Padmanabhanagar in the City the book says the Prime Minister’s second son H.D. Revanna (who is a Minister in the State Cabinet), was “rowdy sheeted” in Hassan District.
During the November 1994 Assembly elections, Revenna, who contested from Holenarasipur, allegedly unleashed lumpen elements throughout the constituency to intimidate voters. In the fact, it was a reign of terror. Liquor and cooked pork was freely distributed among the rustic votes, “the book says.
During the Parliamentary elections this year, Mr. Gowda fielded his third son H.D. Kumaraswamy in the Kanakapura Lok Sabha constituency against Congress candidate M.V. Chandrashekara Murthy. “There was a torrential down pour of filthy lucre and liquor. Gifts were given to voters. The local political personalities commanding vote banks were given suitcases as inducements to work for his success,” the book says.
Levelling charges of treachery against Mr. Gowda, the author draws a parallel between Mr. Gowda and former dictator of Pakistan Late Zia-Ul-Haq. While the late dictator had his mentor Zulfikar Ali Bhutto hanged, Mr. Gowda had his mentor Ramkrishna Hegde beaten with chappals near the State Secretariat Vidhana Soudha during his swearing-in ceremony as the Chief Minister of the State in Decemper 1994.
In an appeal to the United front coalition. Prof Gowda says that “you (the UF Coalition) will be rendering a great service to the soil to Karnataka soil, where he will sit de-fanged and de-winged, in which case Mother India will heave a sigh of relief … and shower her blessings on you for your act of filial kindness”.
(Underlining supplied by me)
7. Thus, it is seen from the above news items published that the imputations are made not only, against the father of the present respondent, who was the Prime Minister of India at the time of the publication of the said news item but also against his sons, daughters and wife, which are per se defamatory in nature. It cannot therefore be said that the present respondent who is one of the sons of Mr. Deve Gowda is not a person aggrieved in respect of the above said news items published in the news paper. Though, the abovesaid news items published are based on the matter contained in the two books published by the accused No. 1 K. Venkatagirigowda and the petitioners are not the authors of the said news items, if ultimately it is found that the matter contained in the books is false and defamatory, the persons who published the above said news items will also be liable for the offence under Section 500 IPC. So, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents is not the person aggrieved in respect of the above news items published in the Indian Express, Bangalore Edition and that editor of the paper not being author of the news item, he is not liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 500 IPC for the publication of the said news. Learned counsel for the petitioners next contended that the Executive Editor, Managing Editor and Resident Editor who are the petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 339/97 and 372/97 are not responsible for the above news items published by the editor of Bangalore Edition of the Indian Express, who is petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 339/97 and therefore, they are not liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 500 IPC. In support of this contention, he relied upon a decision of this Court reproted in ILR 1995 Kant 39 : (1995 Cri.LJ 1922) Prabhu Chawla v. A.U. Sheriff) wherein it was held as under (Paras 15 and 16):
As per the definition of ‘editor’ in Section 1(1) of the act, ‘Editor’ means the person who controls the selection of the matter that is published in a newspaper. There is no reference to Resident Editor, Executive Editor, Managing Editor in the Act. There are no allegations against petitioners 1 to 3 in the complaint to show that they have any hand in selection of the matter that is published in the Indian Express Newspaper. In the absence of positive averments against the petitioners 1 to 3 who are described as ‘Executive Editor’,”Managing Editor’ and ‘Resident Editor and in the absence of presumption available under Section 7 of the Act against them, the learned Magistrate could not have ordered process for the alleged offence under Section 500 IPC. To ask the Executive Editor, Managing Editor and Resident Editor to undergo the trial because of issuing process against them would be oppressive.
8. In the instant case, there are allegations in the complaint to the effect that Accused Nos. 2 to 5 are parties to the conspiracy to defame the complainant, his father and other family members, knowing that the publications contain defamatory im-putations, they have deliberately publishable the news papers, the imputations found in two books by printing and publishing the said news items and they have committed the offences punishable under Section 500 and 501 IPC and they have committed the offence punishable under Section 120-B by entering into criminal conspiracy to defame the complainant and his family members and in pursuance to the said conspiracy, the two books are published and contents of the same are again republished in the Indian Express.
9. In view of the abovesaid allegations found in the complaint, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are no grounds to proceed against A-3 to A-5 for the above referred offences. Whether the abovesaid allegations made in the complaint so far as the A-3 to A-5 are concerned are true or not, is a matter which is to be decided by the trial Court at the time of trial after recording evidence of both parties.
10. The above decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case since in the instant case there are clear allegations in the complaint against all the petitioners to the effect that all of them have conspired together and got the above news items published, with a clear intention to defame the complainant, his father, sister and other members of their family. Since the petitioners themselves have alleged in the grounds of these petitions that the other case filed in the Court of Dist. and Sessions Judge, Delhi, for the offence under Section 500 IPC is only in respect of the matter published in two books by A-1, it cannot be said that the present complaint pertaining to the news items published in Indian Express is based on the same cause of action and that parallel proceedings are pending in two different courts in respect of the same matter.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court (G. Narasimhan v. T.V. Chokkappa) wherein it was held as under :-
Section 198 lays down an exception to the general rule that a complaint can be filed by anybody whether he is an aggrieved person or not and modifies that rule by permitting only an aggrieved person to move a magistrate in cases of defamation. The section is mandatory, so that if a magistrate were to take cognizance of the offence of defamation on a complaint filed by one who is not an aggrieved person, the trial and conviction would be void and illegal.
12. In the instant case, since it is found that the abovereferred news items published contain defamatory allegations not only against the then Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda but also against his sons, daughters and wife, respondent who is one of the sons of Mr. Deve Gowda is a person aggrieved by the said publication of news items and he has locus standi to file the complaint.
13. For the above reasons, I find no grounds to quash the above proceedings pending in CC. No. 17128/96 in the Court of VII Addl. CMM, Bangalore, against the petitioners.
14. All these petitions are therefore, dismissed.