P KIRAN Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/A1 is accused of offence punishable under Section 500 IPC in C.C. No. 601 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class of Narsipatnam along with another. As per allegations in the complaint filed by the second respondent/complainant in the lower Court, A1 is Managing Director of Gemini Television and A2 is Chief Reporter of Gemini Television of Visakhapatnam. THE second respondent/complainant has been in Telugu Desham Party. THE offence took place on 8.9.2008. THE imputation in nutshell, which is stated to have been telecasted in Gemini Television is that the second respondent was going to resign from Telugu Desham Party and was joining the Congress. THE complainant is stated to have received the said information of telecasting in Gemini Television when he was traveling in Godavari Express and when he received several cell phone calls from his party friends and relatives. It is stated in the complaint that the second respondent tried to contact A2 on his Cell Phone No. 9949129399 to ascertain the basis for the alleged defamatory news item and that A2 did not respond and that ultimately the complainant sent S.M.S through Mobile Phone No. 9866666568 to A2 on the same day questioning and protesting on that news item. It is further stated in the complaint that on 10.9.2008 he along with other Telugu Desham Party leaders staged protest in front of office of A1 at Hyderabad on the said news item and that A1 did not oblige to rectify their conduct by telecasting the earlier news item dated 8.9.2008 as false.

(2.) IT is contended by the petitioner's counsel that A1 is not Managing Director of Gemini Television and that one Karunanidhi Maran was the Managing Director thereof. IT is a question of fact as to who is the Managing Director of Gemini Television; and the said question cannot decide the fate of this petition.

(3.) IN para 2 of the complaint it is stated that A1 is Managing Director of the Gemini Television and Teja News Electronic Media, Telecasting news through out the State and also at the National level and that A2 is the Chief Reporter of Gemini Television at Visakhapatnam responsible for gathering news and making news items from the Visakhapatnam District and causing its telecast through the Main station at Hyderabad." Thus even in the complaint, the complainant did not plead and allege that A1, as Managing Director had any role in gathering news or in making news items or in causing its telecast through the channel. No role is attributed to A1 by the complainant in telecasting the alleged defamatory news item. When A1 had no role in telecasting the news items and when Al is only a Managing Director at the helm of affairs in Gemini Television, no vicarious liability on criminal side can be attributed to him unless there is any special or specific provision in Section 499 IPC mulcting him with such vicarious liability. It was so held by this Court in Ravi Prakash v. J.C. Diwakr Reddy and another (1) 2010 (2) ALT (Crl.) 81 = 2010 (1) ALD (Crl.) 575 (A.P.), after surveying case law in the subject including K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala (2) AIR 1992 SC 2206, Dasari Narayana Rao v. R. D. Bhagvanas (3) 1986 Cri.L.J. 888 by this Court,' Prabhu Chawlaand v. A.U Sheriff'(4) 1996 (1) ALT (Crl.) 42 (Karn.)= 1995 Cri.L.J. 1922 of the Karnataka High Court and S. Nihal Singh v. Arjan Das (5) 1983 Cri.L.J. 777 of the Delhi High Court.