NEW INDIAN EXPRESS Vs. S.DIRAVIAM DINESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.144 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, the present criminal original petition has been filed.

(2.) The case of the complainant is that The news item published in The New Indian Express dtd. 23/8/2018 with the caption "HC Raps Estranged Couple, School over fake documents and in the online news edition EDEX Live a news material was posted on 22/8/2018 with the caption "Madras High Courts rebukes couple, who got hold of fake transfer certificate for children".

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that totally five accused in C.C.No.144 of 2021, in which, the 1st accused is the New Indian Express, the 2nd accused is described as Editorial Director, the 3rd accused is Editor in chief, the 4th Accused in chief reporter and the 5th accused is the reporter of the New Indian Express. The petitioners are the first and second accused. As per the declaration made in the paper, A1/The New Indian Express Mr.Manoj Kumar Chontalia is shown as Chairman of the Board and the A3 is shown as Editor in Chief and another person is shown as Residential Editor, whom is made responsible for the selection of news under the PRB Act. As per the online paper is concerned in the declaration, A3 is shown as Editor and A4 as Edex Editor. As far as the 1st accused is concerned, it is the name of the Newspaper, publication and it is not a legal entity or a juristic person and hence, it cannot be made liable under Sec. 500 of I.P.C since the imputations must have been made with the intention to harm or with the knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned. Thus, it is clear that intention to cause harm is the most essential sine qua non for an offence under Sec. 499 I.P.C. The offence punishable under Sec. 500 of I.P.C requires a blame worthy mind and is not a statutory offence requiring no men rea. The 1st acused is a private limited company and not a individual, hence mensrea cannot be attributed against A1, mensrea is the essential ingredient in the said offence. It is submitted that mensrea would be missing as a company it is a juristic entity or an artificial person. It is submitted unless the Sec. of a particular statue will permit the application of the said Sec. to a limited company, the limited company cannot be prosecuted.