MAMMEN MATHEW Vs. M N RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under S. 482 Crpc the petitioner (Mammen Mathew) who is the Editor of Malayala Manorama, Kottayam, seeks to quash Annexure A complaint dated 15/03/2006 and all further proceedings in CC No. 1/2006 on the file of the above JFCM, Mannarkkad. The above case arose out of a private complaint filed by the first respondent herein (M. N. Radhakrishnan) alleging the commission of an offence under S. 499 IPC and punishable under S. 500 IPC.

(2.) THE COMPLAINt The averments in the above private complaint a copy of which has been produced as Annexure A can be summarised as follows: The complainant is the Manager of the Mannarkkad Branch of United India Insurance Company Limited. He was on leave for the period between 11/04/2005 and 24/04/2005 and 26/04/2005 and 06/05/2005. At the time of entering on leave the complainant had, as usual, entrusted the keys of the branch office with the Senior Assistant. While the complainant was on leave as aforesaid a news item was published in the Malayala Manorama daily dated 27/04/2005 of which the first accused is the Editor and responsible for selection of news under the Press and Registration of Books Act. The said news item read as follows: ****** The above news item is absolutely baseless and has been falsely created. The above news has the sure tendency of causing extreme mental agony and humiliation to the complainant. It has the effect of lowering the reputation of the complainant among the public, among the policy holders of the company and among his coworkers. The complainant was not gheravoed by the employees as alleged in the news item. The complainant had absolutely nothing to do with the news that the computer system in the office had been corrupted. During that period the complainant was on leave. The further statements in the news item that the complainant had committed irregularities in the account and had defalcated the agency commission etc. are absolutely false and calculated to humiliate the complainant. On reading the news which proceeds to say that employees by name Madhukishore, Nandakumar, Ramu and Muraleekrishnan etc. were giving leadership for the agitation and that the employees alleged that during the period in which the complainant was on leave, he had come to the office and corrupted the computer installed therein, the complainant issued lawyer notice to all the aforementioned employees. The complainant had also informed the Malayala Manorama that the aforementioned news item was false and had demanded the Malayala Manorama to apologise for the false news published in their daily and to make amends by publishing another news item to the effect that the offending news was untrue. Except the 2nd accused (Ramu) the other three employees sent replies to the effect that they had absolutely no role to play in the publication of the offending news item and that the Malayala Manorama daily dated 27/04/2005 had published another news item to the effect that the employees had not gheravoed the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant caused a lawyer notice to be issued to the first accused Editor calling upon him to insert an apology in the front page of Malayala Manorama to the effect that the news item published on 09/06/2005 was published without any basis and tendering apology to the complainant. But the first accused caused a reply to be sent stating that the news item was published on the basis of information received from reliable sources and at the time when the incident referred to in the news item took place, the reporter of Malayala Manorama was present, that the news item was published in good faith and in public interest, that pursuant to the news item the complainant had contacted the Palakkad Bureau of Manorama and that in the daily dated 28/04/2005 the protest voiced by the complainant was also published. Even though the complainant had informed the first accused that the news item contained false and unfounded allegations inserted without taking due care to ascertain the truth of the allegations and that the complainant had convinced the Palakkad Bureau of the daily through the union of insurance officers that the news item was published without any reasonable basis, except publishing a news item that the complainant had informed that the allegations of the employees were untrue, the first accused did not do anything else. The complainant was not removed from his post as alleged in the offending news item. Malayala Manorama of which the first accused is the Editor is a daily having wide circulation both inside the State of Kerala as well as outside. On account of the unfounded news item published against the complainant he has suffered extreme mental agony and humiliation. His esteem among the public at large, among the policy holders, relatives and even in his own establishment has been lowered considerably. Out of the four employees referred to in the news item all except the 2nd accused had informed the complainant in writing that they had absolutely no connection whatsoever with regard to the news item. Eventhough the 2nd accused received the notice, he has not chosen to send a reply. The complainant, therefore is under the impression that the 2nd accused could be the person responsible for furnishing the information in the news item and he is, therefore, made as 2nd accused in the case. The first accused is the Editor of Malayala Manorama Daily and the entire responsibility for publishing news as per the provisions of the Press and Registration of Books Act is vested in the first accused. The accused have thus committed an offence under S. 499 IPC and punishable under S. 500 IPC. This Court may, therefore, issue summons to the accused who may be tried for the aforesaid offence and properly punished.

(3.) COMPLAINANT's ARGUMENTs The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent / complainant made the following submissions before me opposing the revision:-- Eventhough Annexure B news item was false and tending to lower the reputation of the complainant in the estimation of others, the Malayala Manorama of which the first accused is the Editor has not chosen to tender any apology. On the contrary, he has attempted to justify the defamatory news item. In Annexure E reply sent by the first accused to Annexure D lawyer notice, the first accused would say that the correspondent of the Malayala Manorama Daily was a witness to the entire incident thereby taking the stand that the incident reported in Annexure B news item is true. So, this is a matter for evidence and the case has to go for trial. By Annexure C clarificatory news item the first accused has not made any amends to the libellous news item but instead would report that the complainant contacted to the daily and denied allegations made against him in the earlier news item. This is not a conduct indicating contrition on the part of the first accused. The learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in taking cognizance of the offence and issuing summons to the accused.