HASSAN M M Vs. V A ARUNKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the threshold of a criminal prosecution for defamation, is it invariably necessary to examine witnesses to prove lowering of the reputation of the complainant Is the omission to examine witnesses at that stage fatal to the cognizance taken even in a case where the alleged imputations are per se defamatory Does the omission on the part of the learned Magistrate to record the presence or otherwise of the witnesses of the complainant at the stage of S.200 CrPC ipso facto vitiate the cognizance taken These interesting questions of law are raised on behalf of the petitioner by Adv. Sujith Mathew Jose in this Crl. MC.

(2.) Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under S.500 IPC. Proceedings have been initiated on the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant / respondent herein who happens to be the son of the Chief Minister. The petitioner herein, a public activist and a political leader is alleged to have made defamatory imputations against the complainant in a press conference held by him. He is alleged to have raised per se defamatory imputations. The crux of the defamatory imputations is that the complainant, the son of the Chief Minister had stayed in Dubai for some time; had held secret parleys. On account of such secret meetings a contract has been executed by the State Government with a company at Dubai conferring on the company huge undeserved benefits.

(3.) The said press conference was reported in the print and visual media extensively. According to the complainant he was brought down in the assessment of right thinking members of the society by such defamatory imputations. The complainant filed the complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum. It is submitted at the bar that the sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. No other witness was examined. Cognizance was taken and summons was issued to the petitioner herein. The petitioner on receipt of summons appeared before the learned Magistrate. He was enlarged on bail. Particulars of offence allegedly committed by the petitioner were read over to him. He pleaded not guilty.