SUBAL KUMAR DEY Vs. APANGSHU MOHAN LODH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint petition was made before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala, arraying the petitioner as an accused for the alleged offence under Sections 500, 501 and 502, IPC. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, initiated a proceeding and summoned the accused. The accused appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agartala, and submitted an application questioning the maintainability of the proceeding and for dropping the proceeding. The learned Magistrate upon hearing the learnd counsel for the parties, passed an order rejecting the said application of the accused vide his order dated 5-9-98. Hence this application challenging the legality of the order.

(2.) Though the present petition has been filed as a revision under Section 397/401 Cr. P.C., Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/accused has virtually advanced his argument for quashing of the proceeding under Section 482, Cr. P.C., Mr. Bhowmik, the learned counsel, submitted that even if the allegations contained in the complaint petition are taken on their face value, no offence as such is disclosed therefrom. Continuance of the proceeding, therefore, amounted to miscarriage of justice, submitted the learned counsel. Mr. Sankar Deb, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. B. Das, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. M. Dutta, the learned Advocate, on the other hand seriously opposed the revision petition. Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, the learned counsel, submitted that the petitioner is only a Chief Editor of the News Paper in which the alleged defamatory news item was published. The alleged publication took place without the knowledge of the petitioner and that too in his absence. Mr. Bhowmik further submitted that the allegation contained in the complaint petition are truthful statements and there is justification for such statement. Mr. Bhowmik, the learned counsel, then submitted that initiation of a proceeding is not an empty formality but a serious matter, which requires due application of mind since it involves the liberty of an individual. The learned senior counsel took pains in referring to the allegation of the FIR which was allegedly relied on in the news item to show that there was no malicious statement requiring continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner/accused. The learned CJM, submitted Mr. Bhowmik, even while dismissing the application dated 5-9-98, did not consider those aspects of the matter which ultimately effected his decision. Mr. Bhowmik in support of his case referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Madhavrao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, reported in AIR 1988 SC 709 : (1988 Cri LJ 853); K. M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, reported in (1992) 1 SCC 217 : (1992 Cri LJ 3779) and that in M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, reported in 1998 Cri LJ 1 : (AIR 1998 SC 128).

(3.) Mr. S. Deb, the learned Senior Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that this is not a case for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, also placed reliance upon the presumption under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867.