K GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. A C THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused in a prosecution under Section 500 I.P.C. initiated by the first respondent herein. The first respondent is a police official. He complaints that a news item, perse defamatory to his has been published in the daily (Mathrubhoomi), of which the first respondent is the Editor, the second respondent is the Printer and Publisher, third respondent is the Managing Editor and the 4th respondent the Reporter, who gave the news item for publication. On the complaint filed by the first respondent, without conducting any enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and summons was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners have all come to this Court with the prayer that the proceedings against them may be quashed invoicing the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(2.) That the petitioners are the Editor, Printer and Publisher, Managing Editor and the Reporter is not seriously disputed. It is not disputed that the names of the accused 1 to 3 appear as such in the allegedly objectionable publication.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioners raised on two specific contentions. The first contention is applicable to all the four accused persons. It is contended (that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance without due and proper application of mind. It is contended that though the complaint itself shows that a notice was issued by the complainant to the accused persons and they had submitted a reply, cognizance has been taken without and before insisting on production of the reply notice and without perusing the contents of the said reply notice. In these circumstances it must be held that there is no proper application of mind by the learned Magistrate before issuing process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. contends counsel.