GAUTAM ADHIKARI Vs. JAGIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.M.(M) No.2664/95 under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code which was allowed to be treated as a revision later on, was filed on 6, 3/11/1995 alleging that petitioner No.1 is the Executive Director while petitioner No.2 is printer and publisher of 'The Times of 'India' newspaper owned by M/s.Bennett Coleman & Co.Ltd, 7, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. On 25/9/1994, Sajjan Kumar, DPCC General Secretary and Member of Parliament held a Press Conference in which he invited journalists from various newspapers. News based on the statement made by Sajjan Kumar in the press conference was published bonafidely in the issue of 'Times of India' dated 26/9/1994 keeping in mind the interest of public. Last paragraph of the news item reported is as follows:-

(2.) It is alleged that the respondent through counsel issued a notice to petitioners on 10/10/1994 alleging that they published the said news item recklessly by making libel against him. Petitioners sent separate replies dated 22/10/1994 through their counsel to the said notice. In the reply sent on behalf of petitioner No.1 it was stated that in the news-item in question there was no reference to the respondent either directly or indirectly and therefore, the notice issued was uncalled for. In the reply sent on behalf of petitioner No.2 it was stated that though he is the printer and publisher but he did not know what is published in the newspaper until the newspaper is delivered to him by the hawker in morning and,therefore, he is not liable for what was printed in the issue dated 26/9/1994. It is also alleged that despite these replies the respondent filed complaint case No.125/1/94 under sections 499,500 and 501 Indian Penal Code before a Metropolitan Magistrate at Tis Hazari courts who after taking cognizance, has issued summons for appearance of petitioners on 8/11/1995. It is claimed that the allegations made in the complaint even if they are taken at their face value, do not disclose commission of any offence by the petitioners. It was prayed that the proceedings initiated against petitioners in said complaint case No.125/1/94 may be quashed.

(3.) Respondent-complainant contested the petition by filing reply. It is alleged that he has been carrying business of hotel and restaurant at C-4/1, Mayapuri Chowk New Delhi for the last about 6 to 8 years. The restaurant is having a licensed bar. There is no other licensed bar in the area of Mayapuri. Statement made in the issue of 'Times of India' dated 26/9/1994 directly refers to the hotel and restaurant of the respondent. Respondent is a well known person in the locality and people can very well make out and have actually made out that the imputation made in the news-item pertains to his hotel and restaurant. Petitioner No.1 being the editor and petitioner No.2 being printer and publisher of newspaper, are equally guilty for the offence of defamation. It is asserted that the allegations made in the news-item in question really constitute the offence of defamation against both the petitioners.