TATA MOTORS LTD. Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 09.10.2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the Criminal Complaint No.911/1/07 under Section 499, 500, 501 & 502 read with Section 34 and 25 IPC filed by the complainant/petitioner, the present revision petition has been filed by the complainant/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner).

(2.) FACTUAL matrix, as emerges from the record, is that the petitioner was aggrieved by publication of an article titled: 'People's Car or 'Blood Car'? Is Ratan Tata bent on destroying the JRD legacy Shame in Singur, TSI Exposes and Documents the Disgrace published in the periodical "The Sunday Indian" Vol.I Issue 18, 5th to 11th February, 2007. The criminal complaint for offences under Section 499, 500, 501 & 502 read with Section 34 and 25 IPC was filed against Arindam Chaudhuri, Editor -in -Chief; Malay Chaudhuri, Chief Consulting Editor; A. Sandeep, Editor; Sutanu Guru, Managing Editor; Abhimanyu Ghosh, Chief Executive Officer and Ashok Bose, Publisher & Printer. It was alleged that the article was defamatory and lowered the esteem of the petitioner and its management. The petitioner set out various imputations in the said article which according to them attract the aforementioned offences under the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) MR . Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the article published in the magazine of the respondent nos.2 to 7 was per se defamatory. Several imputations made in the magazine which were false and malicious just to incite the people to indulge in the activity portrayed in the picture. The imputations included the cover page of the magazine apart from "It (Singur) looks like a war zone. You get the feeling that blood has been spilled here. And that more will be. This is the making of the dream car. It's more like the making of the blood car." and "Bye bye Tata: protestors blacken the gates of a Tata Motors Plant". There was no material to portray the petitioner as such in the magazine. The defence of the proposed accused can only be seen during evidence led at the time of trial and not prior to notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C.