SHOBHANA BHARTIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants are associated with Hindustan Times Limited which is a company registered and incorporated in New Delhi and engaged in the business of printing and distribution of Hindustan Times Newspaper. Applicants No. 1 and 2 are Editorial Directors, Applicant No. 3 Resident Editor, Applicant No. 4 Author and News Reporter, Applicant No. 5 Sub-Editor, and applicant No. 6 Publisher and Printer of Hindustan Times. They have filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge the order dated 15th September, 2004 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd court, Esplanade, Mumbai issuing process in Criminal Case No. 1993/SS/2004 and for quashing of the proceedings. The complaint in question is filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 499, 500, 501 and 502 IPC alleging that the article 4th published by the applicants in Hindustan Times on October, 2001 titled 'Mumbai NCB Chief Under CBI Scanner" , is defamatory. Respondent No. 2 is a public servant. At the relevant time, he was posted as Zonal Director of Narcotics Control Bureau.

(2.) The applicants had earlier filed a similar application in this Court for quashing of the very proceedings being Criminal Application No. 5839 of 2004. It was contended in the application that from the averments in the complaint filed by the respondent, no offence is disclosed and even otherwise the applicants are protected by Exception-1 and Exception-9 of Section 499 IPC. It was also contended by them that the article was published in public interest in discharge of their duty as media. The application was heard on merits and dismissed by speaking order dated 28th April, 2005. The applicants thereafter had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4380 of 2005. That petition was referred to larger bench on a limited question as to the validity of one of the legal issues involved in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal cited as, 2004 7 SCC 338 i.e. scope of the inquiry/hearing at the stage of consideration of notice. On 25th March, 2009 on the request of the applicants the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition as withdrawn with liberty to raise all the defences before the Court of Magistrate.

(3.) Three years after dismissal of the earlier application, the applicants have filed the present application based solely on technical grounds, which were not raised in the earlier application. The challenge to the impugned order and quashing of the proceedings is based on two grounds. Firstly, that the respondent No. 2 being a public servant, the special procedure prescribed under Section 199(2) ought to have been adopted. The complaint filed personally by respondent No. 2 in the court of Magistrate is without jurisdiction. Secondly, Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services Rules, 1964 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution require prior sanction of the Government for filing of complaint for defamation by a Central Government servant. No such sanction was obtained by the respondent No. 2.