SATYA NARAIN GUPTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed against the order of cognizance dated 5. 5. 2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar, in Criminal Case No. 222/2001, under Section 500 read with Section 34 IPC. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the revisional Court, by filing a revision petition, but the same was also dismissed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhalawar, vide his order dated 23. 2. 2005 confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, this petition has been filed before this Court.

(2.) THIS petition had came up for consideration of the High Court on 7. 6. 2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the alleged offence is of 1. 11. 1996 and the cognizance had been taken after expiry of the period of limitation i. e. three years, as provided under Section 468 Cr. P. C. Some other grounds were also raised. In view of the said submissions, the High Court had admitted the petition, issued notices to the respondents and stayed the proceedings before the trial court. Ultimately, the same Bench, on 6. 12. 2007 had ordered that the learned counsel for the parties are directed to come prepared for final hearing of the case on 3. 1. 2008. Accordingly, the matter was finally heard by this Court on 4. 1. 2008.

(3.) IT has also been pleaded by the petitioner that both the Courts below have committed an error and acted without jurisdiction as the new items in the News Paper were published on 1. 11. 1996 as also on 6. 11. 1996 and the cognizance could have been taken only within three years. He has further submitted that the learned trial Court, without any application or prayer made by the complainant, invoked Section 473 Cr. P. C. and took cognizance against both the accused persons for the offences under section 500 read with Section 34 IPC. IT has also been submitted that neither from the complaint nor from the statements recorded by the trial Court any offence under Sections 500/34 IPC is made out. The necessary ingredients for defamation are defined under Section 499 IPC and neither the complainant nor his witnesses have prima-facie proved the facts that the complainant tried to defame the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner neither the Publisher nor the Reporter of the News Paper were examined by the trial Court before taking the cognizance. Therefore, the order of cognizance is bad in law. He has also submitted that the respondent No. 2 is a habitual offender and there are many cases pending against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized on the fact that the complaint was against five persons but cognizance had been taken only against the petitioner and the reporter.