ANIL THAKERANEY Vs. DARIUS KAPADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these applications have been mentioned in the Board as fixed for final hearing. Shri Saste is appearing for the State of Maharashtra and has been saddled with the burden of protecting the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, this Court does not wait for Shri Kapadia, the original complainant and hears these applications which are pretty old and which have obstructed the hearing of the criminal prosecutions in the Trial Court.

(2.) SHRI H. N. Vakil appearing for Shri Anil Thakeraney (original accused no. 6 mentioned in the complaint in context with Case No. 1817/s/1998)submitted that the petitioner published the true account of a criminal proceeding in his magazine "the BRIEF" and, therefore, keeping in view the exception provided to section 499 of the I. P. C. , he has not committed the offence of defamation. He submitted that the Trial Court should not have taken the cognizance of the complaint filed by respondent Kapadia and should not have issued the process against him in context with section 500 of the I. P. C. Shri Gangal submitted that his client Shri Kamath has absolutely played no role as per the allegations made in the complaint. Therefore, no cognizance should be taken against him by the Magistrate and the process should not have been Issued against him. Shri Gangal further submitted that this Court has wide powers and, therefore, when it is a case of no case at all, this Court be pleased to quash the order of issuing process against his client Shri Kamath.

(3.) 4th exception under section 499 of the I. P. C. provided that it is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of a court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings. If at all anybody has to be within four corners of the exception, he has to act reasonably and in good faith. His action must be with due caution and care. In view of that, the imputation published in "the BRIEF" has to be viewed, The petitioner has published that imputation as alleged by the complainant. The matter starts with heading in very big letters "the Director behind barsl" It is sure to invite anybody's attention by its nature itself. In that case the person looking to it would be gathering the impression that the aged director has gone behind the bars. Prima facie it would create a stigma to him. The petitioner has not published the remaining portion of the item in the same size of the letters. The remaining portion of the matter is in small letters. Even that also starts with some sentences which are prima facie damaging the reputation of the aged director who has been reported to be behind bars. The said heading has been decorated with exclamation mark. That has given more strength to the impact which is likely to be created by it. The reporting of the talk ensued between the Brief spokesperson and Shri kapadia (original complainant) has been mentioned in the said news item at last but one paragraph. Before reading that paragraph one has to read paragraph 1 and paragraph 2.