E P JAYARAJAN Vs. SURENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner the printer and publisher of Deshabhimani Daily, the second accused in CC No. 658 of 2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Varkala filed this petition under S.482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the complaint as against him contending that it is only an abuse of process of the Court. First respondent filed Annexure A complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Varkala against petitioner and one Sundaresan alleging that they committed an offence under S.499 punishable under S.500 of Indian penal Code. It was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate. The allegation in the complaint is that first accused called a Press Conference on 04/07/2007 and made defamatory allegations against first respondent and it was published in Deshabhimani Daily and petitioner as printer and publisher is responsible for publication of the news and therefore both the accused committed the offence. The allegations as against the petitioner is that without finding out the correctness of the allegations in the defamatory statement made by the first accused, petitioner with the intention to defame first respondent published the defamatory statement in Deshabhimani Daily dated 05/07/2007 and thereby committed the offence. It is contended that first respondent was a member of the political party and petitioner is a political leader and due to the difference of opinion, first respondent had resigned from the party and due to the enemity the defamatory statements were published and by reading the news from the Deshabhimani Daily, first respondent found that persons were avoiding him and looking him with contempt. This petition is filed under S.482 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that as disclosed in the complaint itself, the Press Conference was telecasted in ACV new channel live and it was re - telecasted and still no action was taken against the persons responsible for telecasting it in ACV channel and hence prosecution of the petitioner is an abuse of process of the Court and that too out of political reasons. It is also contended that petitioner is only the printer and publisher and as he is not selecting news items, which is the duty of the Editor, and still no action was taken against the Editor and therefore the proceedings as against the petitioner is without bona fides and is to be quashed.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and first respondent were heard.

(3.) Learned counsel relying on the decision of the Apex Court in C. H. Mohammed Koya v. T. K. S. M. A. Muthukoya, 1978 KHC 174 : 1978 KLT 699 : AIR 1979 SC 154 : 1979 (2) SCC 8 : 1979 (1) SCR 664 and the decisions of a learned single of High Court of Karnataka in Editor, Deccan Herald v. M. S. Ramaraju, 2005 KHC 2076 : 2005 (2) KLD (Crl) 356 and a learned Single Judge of this Court in Achuthanandan V. S. v. V. G. Kamalamma, 2008 (2) KLJ 417 : 2008 (2) KHC 562 : ILR 2008 (2) Ker. 582 : 2008 (3) KLT 346 : 2008 CriLJ 4221 argued that being the printer and publisher, petitioner is not responsible for selection of the news items and as it is the duty of the editor, petitioner cannot be prosecuted for publishing the news item selected by the editor and therefore the prosecution is to be quashed. Learned counsel also argued that if the grievance of the petitioner is about publication of the statement made by the first accused, which according to first respondent is defamatory, the publication was first by ACV channel and the fact that no action is taken against ACV channel shows that petitioner has no grievance against publication of the statement made by the first accused and petitioner is being prosecuted only because first respondent was earlier a member of the political party and he was ousted from the party and due to that enemity and therefore continuation of the prosecution as against the petitioner is only an abuse of process of the Court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also pointed out that not only that first respondent did not prosecute the ACV channel or the persons responsible for telecasting in the channel but cited the person responsible for telecasting as a witness, which implies that there is no grievance against publication of the statement by ACV channel and if that be so, petitioner cannot be prosecuted for publishing the same news item.