SWAMY AROOPANANDA Vs. BAGMISRI NILAMADHABOA BRAMHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against the order dated 17-5-1997 passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, taking cognizance under Section 500, Indian Penal Code (for short "the I.P.C."), against the petitioner in I.C.C. No. 137 of 1997.

(2.) The allegations in this revision petition are that a complaint was filed by one Bagmisri Nilamadhaba Bramha, Advocate, Orissa High Court, alleging therein that the complainant came across a news item in daily newspaper "THE SAMBAD" dated 1-5-96 under the heading "PURATAN MATHA, MANDIRARA SURAIGIYA ANDOLANA KARAZIBA-SWAMI AROOPANANDA". According to the complainant, in the said news item some false allegations were made against the Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa which are defamatory in nature." As per the complainant, present petitioner Swamy Aroopananda made a statement that the Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa is going on granting permission for illegal sale of the landed properties of several old Maths and temples, keeping his own interest in view. It is further alleged in the complaint petition that the said Swamy Aroopananda declared in the said statements to create public opinion in the forthcoming days, against such action of the Endowments Commissioner and demanded for a C.B.I. enquiry in relation to alienation of Debottar properties. The complaint was filed against the present petitioner on the allegation of making defamatory statements and against the Editor and Publisher of newspapers, who published the statements of the petitioner in the newspapers which were defamatory in nature. According to the complaint the petitioner tried to defame the Commissioner of Endowments, a Senior Judicial Officer, intending to harm his reputation. It was further alleged in the complaint that orders passed under Sections 19, 25, 35 and 68 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act are judicial orders and therefore, no opinion can be given in the newspaper. The learned Magistrate prima facie found that an offence has been committed and took cognizance under Section 500, I.P.C. against the, petitioner as well as opposite parties 2 and 3. Interestingly while pursuing the complaint petition, I find that Sri Gopinath Panda, Orissa Superior Judicial Service (Senior Branch), the then Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa Bhubanewar was cited as a witness in the said complaint petition. This Court is yet to know whether his name was cited with his consent or without his knowledge. Be that as it may, let me examine whether the Magistrate is correct in taking cognizance under Section 500, I.P.C.

(3.) As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a case under Section 500, I.P.C. has not been made out. Let me reproduce the definition of defamation as contained in Section 499, I.P.C.