DAINIK HINDUSTAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal procedure Code, this petition has been filed against the order dated 17-1 -2000 passed below ex. 29 by the learned J. M. F. C. whereby the application of the petitioner for discharge has been rejected.

(2.) Mr. Kasat, learned counsel, contended that the applicant/petitioner has been prosecuted by respondent no. 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of indian Penal Code by filing private criminal complaint. He contended that the name of the petitioner has been arrayed as accused no. 2 in the said complaint which would indicate that accused no. 2 Dr. Arun Marathe is the Chief editor of the newspaper Daily Hindustan. He contended that the averments in the complaint only show that accused no. 2 is the Chief Editor and there is no averment in the complaint that whatever news was published in the daily newspaper dated 21-3-1998 was within his knowledge and therefore this applicant ought to have been discharged from the trial. He contended that in absence of positive averments in the complaint and the knowledge of the objectionable character of the matter, the magistrate was not justified in rejecting the application for discharge. In support of these contentions he relied on the decision of the Apex court in K. M. Mathew Vs. State of Kerala, (1992) 1 SCC 217.

(3.) The learned A. P. P. contended that the trial is yet to begin and the evidence has not been recorded. He contended that simply because accused no. 2 is named as Chief editor. it did not follow that he is liable to be discharged for the offence punishable under sections 500, 501 and 502 of Indian Penal Code. He contended that accused no. 2 shown in the complaint is Dainik Hindustan which is a legal entity and sought to be prosecuted through its owner, Publisher and Chief Editor Dr. Arun marathe. Therefore, the decision of the apex court in K. M. Mathew's case, cited supra, relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant would not be of any assistance to the applicant.