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.)