SUBAL KUMAR DEY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Subal Kumar Dey is the Editor and Publisher of the Bengali daily named "Syandam Patrika" printed, published and circulated from Agartala. One Yudhisthir Ray lodged a complaint on 8-5-1997 in Chebri Police Station under Khowai Sub-division against Mr. Dey that his newspaper published a news item on 25-2-1997 that some explosives had been recovered from the house of a person named Ganga Charan Debbarma who was the relative of the then Chief Minister, which was false and fabricated. According to the informant the said news item was published with a view to malign the democratically elected Chief Minister and to incite disharmony between the tribal and the Bengali communities. The written complaint was registered as Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 46 of 1997 under Ss. 501, 505(l)(b)(c), 153, 153-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation following the said FIR found prima facie evidence resulting to submission of a charge-sheet against Mr. Dey, the petitioner herein. On the prayer of the petitioner the case was transferred from the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Khowai to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agartala. On 30-6-2000 Mr. Dey submitted a prayer for his discharge on the ground that the criminal proceeding against him was not maintainable in law as no personal injury was caused to the informant. The prayer for discharge was dealt with by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in his order dated 7-8-2001. While rejecting the prayer the trial Court observed that the charge-sheet was filed against the accused-petitioner under Ss. 153-A, 505(1)(b)(c) of the Indian Penal Code in support of which sufficient materials exist on record. It was further observed that both the provisions being analogous the alleged offence had to be understood after ascertaining whether the news item was published and circulated to excite commotion and create communal disharmony and whether such news was false and fabricated. The learned Court felt that at the stage of taking cognizance on the basis of the police report it was not possible to come to a definite finding whether the accused had published the news item without deliberate and malicious intention. At such a stage the Court would just consider if there was ground for presuming that the accused had committed an offence. According to the learned trial Court at the stage of cognizance there is no scope to record a conclusion that the materials on record are not likely to lead to conviction at the end of the trial. After taking a view that it will be premature to say that there is no sufficient materials against the accused, the petition for discharge came to be rejected. Aggrieved, the accused-petitioner by means of this revision petition under Ss. 397 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code called in question the correctness and validity of the said order dated 17-8-2001 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate with a prayer for setting aside the said order and discharge the accused from the said proceeding.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel and Mr. S. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. R. C. Debnath, learned Special P.P. for the respondent.

(3.) The news item which is a foundation of the present proceeding needs to be noticed at the outset. The English version of the same given in Annexure-3 to which no dispute was raised reads thus :