KESAVA MENON Vs. BINDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the accused Nos.4 and 5 in CC.No.938/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam, for offence punishable under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The first petitioner is the editor of Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Company Limited, Kozhikode and the second petitioner is an employee of Mathrubhumi daily.

(2.) First respondent herein is the defacto complainant. She laid a complaint against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 4, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam, alleging that publication of similar news items by the petitioners in Mathrubhumi daily and the respondents 3 and 4 in Deshabhimani daily, of which, they were the Chief Editor and printer and publisher respectively were defamatory to her. The second respondent is an elected member of the Avanoor Grama Panchayath.

(3.) According to Annexure-A1 complaint, complainant was the ICDS supervisor of Anganvadis in Avanoor Grama Panchayath. Second respondent herein had submitted a complaint dated 24.10.2014 to the District Collector falsely alleging that there were wide spread irregularities and falsification of records and misappropriation of funds in relation to purchase and disbursement of the food supplied to the students of Anganvadi. It was alleged that the first respondent was responsible for the irregularities and the misappropriation. It was further alleged that Grama Panchayath had resolved to conduct an inspection by a three member committee. They allegedly inspected the Anganvadis and found that food materials of good quality were not supplied to the students. Huge misappropriation of funds were also detected. It was again alleged by the second respondent that on his complaint, food safety authorities had visited the place. They had found that many cereals and pulses were infested with worms. However, the first respondent took them to another store of her choice and drew samples from that store. According to the first respondent, the allegations made by the second respondent in his complaint were absolutely false and made with malafide intention. He gave wide publicity to his complaint through media, hoardings and flex boards erected at different places. Everybody who knew the first respondent could identify that the allegations referred to the first respondent.