PRATAP KUMAR ROY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadia on 7.5.87 in Case No. 226-C of 1987 whereby he took cognizance and issued processes against the petitioners and also against the opposite party No. 2 under sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The petitioner No. 1 is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the daily newspaper 'Aajkal' having its office at 96, Raja, Ram Mohan Sarani, Calcutta-9. The petitioner No. 2 is the Joint Editor of the said newspaper and the petitioner No. 3 is a Private Limited Company having a printing press wherein the said newspaper is alleged to have been printed. On 7.5.87 the opposite party No. 3 as complainant filed a petition of complaint against. the petitioners and the, opposite party No. 2 alleging that by a publication published on 25.2.87 in the said newspaper under the heading "Dhul Pariman" and under the heading "Daftar Bhangchur Korbo" defamed the reputation and the image of the complainant. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadia on perusal of the said petition of complaint and on examination of the complainant and his witness present took cognizance by his order dated 7.5.87 which is being impugned here and directed issuance of process under sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and the opposite party No. 2. In pursuance thereof the petitioners appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and thereafter filed the instant revision for setting aside the impugned order and for quashing the proceeding in which the said order was made.

(3.) Mr. Anjan Kumar Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has argued that the petitioner No. 2 being the Joint Editor of the said newspaper cannot be held responsible for any publication made therein and that as such the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was wrong in taking cognizance against him as he did in this case. He has also argued that the petitioner No. 3 being a juristic person, having no mind and incapable of having any 'mens rea' cannot be held liable for defamation as alleged to have been caused in this case. He has also argued that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance in this case inasmuch as there is no averment in the petition of complaint that impugned publication was either circulated or published in Nadia within the local limits of which he exercised his jurisdiction. He has further argued that the impugned publication is covered by the third and the ninth exception of section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.