RAVI PRAKASH Vs. J C DIWAKAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.168 of 2006 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tadipatri relating to offence punishable under Section 500 IPC.

(2.) The 1st respondent is the complainant in the lower Court. He was the Minister for Panchayat Raj and Endowments in Government of Andhra Pradesh at the relevant point of time. He hails from Tadipatri Taluq. On 18.3.2006 one Rajendranath Reddy of Velamkur Village was murdered. On that day, the 1st respondent was at Ananthapur attending District Development Review meeting in his official capacity. It is alleged that when the media people asked for his comment on the said murder, the complainant expressed the same to be unfortunate and condemned the same and that the complainant was shocked, confused, fuzzled, perplexed and embarrassed to watch the news item telecast in T.V-9 News Channel when he watched the news reader saying that the complainant rebuked the media in filthy language when details about murder of T.D.P. leader were asked. It is further alleged that voice over artist stated that the T.D.P. leaders are alleging hands of J.C. Brothers behind the murder, that when media raised this with the complainant, he politely reacted in the first instance, that politeness did not stand some more time, that on confirmation about the media mikes and cameras are off, the complainant exhibited his real mind without knowing that camera of T.V-9 was still on. It is further alleged that words read by news reader and voice over artist of T.V-9 channel to the effect that the complainant displayed his original character and real character; and that it lowered the dignity of the complainant and defamed him in the public. It is further alleged that in T.V-9 news channel, there was scroll telecast to the effect that the complainant commented that the media are not eating food and are eating grass and that they have no eligibility to speak with those having stature of himself as wages of the media in the state are meagre; and that the complainant insulted the media. The complainant disputes truth of the said imputations. On those allegations, the complainant filed criminal case in the lower Court against the accused on the ground that the defamatory news item was telecast by T.V-9 news channel which is under control of the accused. The accused is described as Chief Executive Officer of T.V-9. The question is whether Chief Executive Officer of a T.V-9 news channel can be prosecuted for defamation on the ground that false imputations were made against the complainant in that T.V news channel.

(3.) At the same time, it should be noted that the complainant is alleging criminal defamation against the accused, as distinguished from civil defamation. In order to constitute offence of defamation under criminal law, Section 499 IPC contemplates "intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm reputation of such person" on the part of the accused. In the entire complaint, the complainant/1st respondent did not allege that the accused who is Chief Executive Officer of T.V-9 channel telecast the news item or permitted to telecast the news item with such state of mind (Mens rea). Except as Chief Executive Officer of the T.V. news channel, the complainant did not allege any other connection for the accused with telecasting of this news item. It is not as if the accused was news reader or voice over artist or editor or news reporter in relation to this news item or the news bulletin in which this news item was telecast. In the absence of any such connection for the accused with this news item and in the absence of any such Mens rea or state of mind for the accused in relation to this news item, simply because the accused happened to be Chief Executive Officer or Proprietor or Partner of Managing Director of the T.V. News Channel, no criminal case can lie against him for offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.C.