K NARENDRA Vs. AMRIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed under Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code, by K. Narendra, Managing Proprietor, Printer, Publisher and Editor of Hindi Daily "veer Arjun", New Delhi and Nanak Ram Israni, Correspondent of the above paper, Ajmer, against the order dated November 4, 1971, of learned Additional Munsinvmagis-trate, Ajmer City (East ).

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that Amrit Kumar Advocate had been engaged in Criminal Case No. 238 of 1966 (State V. Ajit Singh under Sections 323 and 335, Indian Penal Code), pending in the court of Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, Ajmer, on behalf of Ajit Singh. When Ajit Singh had come to know on 25-8-1970, that that case had been decided against him and he had been convicted and sentenced, he had shouted to attract the attention of the court as to how he had been convicted when he had already given to his Advocate Amrit Kumar bribe money to be paid to the Munsiff-Magistrate. At that time Amrit Kumar was also present before the Court He stood up and remonstrated to Ajit Singh about hi foolish behaviour. Ajit Singh had not paid heed to his counsel's protest. Amrit Kumar, with a view to pacify him, had taken him aside and it is alleged that the amount of Rs. 800/-, received by him from Ajit Singh had been returned to him. Thereafter Amrit Kumar had told several persons that the money in fact had not been received by him, but it had been accepted by his junior Sham-sher Singh. When Shamsher Singh had come to know of this, he had made an application to the President of the Bar Association, Ajmer, imploring him to move the Bar Council concerned for taking appropriate action against his senior Amrit Kumar. What had been the fate of that application is not known. After some time Shamsher Singh had made a complaint on September 2, 1970, in the court of the Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, Ajmer City (East), against Amrit Kumar under Sections 500 and 504, Indian Penal Code. Learned Additional Munsiff-Magistrate ordered its registration. After the filing of the complaint Shamsher Singh had been examined by the Court on September 7, 1970. Accused No. 2 Nanak Ram somehow came to know of the contents of the complaint and the substance of Shamsher Singh's allegations. He communicated the relevant facts to the Printer, Publisher and Editor of "veer Arjun", New Delhi. These facts were published in the issue of "veer Arjun", dated September 29, 1970. By this publication Armit Kumar felt offended. He, therefore, made a complaint against K. Narendra and Nanak Ram Israni under Sections 500, and 501/109, Indian Penal Code in the court of the Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, Ajmer City (East ). Learned Munsiff-Magistrate, after necessary proceedings, ordered the registration of the case and further directed that processes should be issued against both the parties, K. Narendra and Nanak Ram Israni. Later on both the accused moved an application in the Trial Court to discharge them under Section 253 (2), Criminal Procedure Code. The Trial Court, by its order dated November 4, 1971, dismissed the application, saying that the publication of a news item in the manner in which it had been done was not warranted by law and, therefore, the accused could not prima facie claim protection under exception No. IV. of Section 499, Indian Penal Code and that the reports so published did not form part of the court's proceedings.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the above order, the present application has been taken by the two accused before this Court under Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code. learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Trial Court went wrong in observing that the news item was independent of what had been complained to the court The Trial Court, K. Narendra and Anr. vs. Amrit Kumar (18. 12. 1972 -RAJHC) Page 3 of 7 counsel adds, fell in error in further holding that the publication did not form part of the court's proceedings. learned Counsel for the side opposite supported the order of the Additional Munsifi-Magitrate, Ajmer City (East ). His argument is that unless the complainant was given an opportunity of adducing his evidence, it cannot be held at this stage that the accused are entitled to claim absolute privilege under fourth exception to Section 499, Indian, Penal Code. He has cited in support of his contentions Supreme Court decision, reported as Balraj Khanna v. Moti Ram.