SATENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Vs. A B SHOREWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE nine applications under section 482 Cr. P. C. (new) have been filed by the appli cants for quashing the proceedings of different criminal cases pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Lucknow u/s 500 I. P. C. and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. All these cases have arisen on the basis of differ ent complaints filed by Sri A. B. Shorewal, opp. party. The applicants of these applications are editors, printers and publishers of different newspapers, and also Chairman, Manager, Reporter etc., of different news agencies. The opp. party Sri A. B. Shorewal was formerly employed in the U. P. Poli ce Service as Deputy Supdt., of Police. For some reason or the other he was pla ced under suspension. A Member of U. P. Legislative Assembly, namely Shri Sarvasukh Singh tabled certain questions in the Assembly eliciting details regarding suspension of the opp. party. While submitting reply to those questions an Hon'ble Minister of the U. P. Govern ment namely, Shri Om Prakash Singh furnished certain informations about the opp. party to the House. One of the informations given by the Hon'ble Minister was that on 30. 10. 1969 the opp. party was found in suspicious cir cumstances near Pakistan Embassy. News about those replies given by the Hon'ble Minister were flashed in different news papers, namely, the Aaj, the Amar Usala, the National Herald, the Nav Jiwan, the Swatantra Bharat the Nav Bharat Times and the Pioneer. Information was gathered by the editors, printers, publishers and reporters of those newspapers from news agencies known as Samachar Bharti and Hindustan Samachar. The contention of the opposite party in the different complaints filled by him against the applicants is that he was a highly respectable person belonging to a reputed family of Shorewals. He was a writer and poet and had published seve ral books. He had contributed articles and poems to various papers and perio dicals and used to broadcast his poems from All India Radio. He was honoured by the management of a fortnightly paper 'Revolt' through appointment as its Honorary Chief Literary Editor. The opposite party was also associated with organisations like Lala Shital Pd. Sho rewal Trust and a Girls Inter College of Etawah. He maintained that on account of malice, and in order to cause harm to the reputation of the opposite party, the petitioners who were connected with different news agencies, flashed distorted about replies given by the Hon'be Mi nister Sri Om Prakash Singh at the floor of the House and also suppressed the in formation given to the House by Shri Roop Nath Yadava. M. L. A. and an Ex-Minister, where by the position of opposite party stood clarified, and the petitioners who were associated with newspapers referred to above had like wise published twisted news to cause harm to the reputation of the opposite party and suppressed publication of such news which clarified the position of opposite party. The opposite party thus maintained that the petitioners were guil ty of an offence under Section 500 I. P. C. and other connected offences as detail ed in different complaints. The learned Magistrate, in whose court the complain ts were filed, perused the complainant's statement and documents filed by him and summoned the petitioners to stand their trial under section 500 I. P. G. The petitioners have now come to this Court with these applications. The first point urged on behalf of the petitioners before me is that the com plaints filed by the opposite party against them were barred by Section 3 of the U. P. State Legislature Proceedings (Pro tection of Publication) Act, 1974 which Act, inspite of its subsequent repeal was applicable to the aforesaid complaints. Section 3 of the said Act runs as follows ; "3. (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), no person shall be liable to any proceedings, Civil or Criminal, in any court in respect of the publication in a newspaper or in respect of the supply by a news agency for publication in a newspaper of a substantially true report of any pro ceedings of either House of the Uttar Pradesh State Legislature, un less the publication is proved to have been made with malice. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall be construed as protecting the publi cation of any matter, the publication of which is not for the public good." A bare reading of the above section would reveal that it will apply to the publication in a newspaper of any pro ceedings of either House of U. P. State Legislature or in respect of news supplied by a news agency, provided that the said news contain a substantially true report of the proceedings and the publication is proved to have been made without malice and the publication matter was for public good. Before coming to the conclusion whether or not the complaints filed by the opposite party against the petitioners are hatred by the above noted Section 3 of the Said Act findings of fact are to be given on three points, namely (i) that the impugned publication contained a sub stantially true report of the proceedings of State Legislature, (ii) that the publi cation was not made with malice, and (iii) that the impugned publication was, or was not for the public good. Those findings of fact have to be given by the courts which are dealing with the im pugned complaints. This court, while exercising its inherent jurisdication under Section 482, Cr. P.C., cannot enter into those questions of fact. The petitioners would be well advised to take up the plea of the bar of section 3 of the afore said Act before the trial court because this court cannot quash the proceedings of the impunged complaints at this stage unless the aforesaid findings of fact are given. Secondly, it was argued on behalf of the applicants that taking the allegations of opposite party, as they stand, no off ence of defamation stands made out against the petitioners. I do not agree with this contention also. In a charge under section 500 I.P.C., the prosecution has to make out the following ingre dients :- 1. Making or publishing any im putation concerning any person.

(2.) SUCH imputation must have been made- (i) by words, either spoken or intended to be read ; or (ii) by signs; or (iii) by visible representations.