A K JAIN Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been moved under Ss. 561-A and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which Code is still in force in the State of Sikkim, for quashing the Order dated 9-8-1991 summoning the applicants to face a criminal charge under Ss. 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (East and North) Sikkim in Criminal Misc. Case No. 26 of 1991, registered on the complaint petition by respondent No. 2.

(2.) Messers Bennett Coleman and Company Ltd., is carrying on the business of printing and publishing various newspapers, magazines, periodicals and weeklies from various parts of the country and one of the dailies published by this Company is Nav Bharat Times. Applicant No. 1, Shri A. K. Jain, is the Chairman and Applicant No. 2, Shri Samir Jain, is the Managing Director of the Company. The criminal proceedings arose from a news item published by the Nav Bharat Times on 11-12-90 with the heading "Dalmia Samooh ki kar chori pakari gayi", which purported to expose the laundering of black money into while giving details about the searches made by the Income-tax Department at the houses and offices numbering about 70 of the companies connected with M/s. Dalmia Bros. Narrating the modus operendi, it was stated that five companies including Sovereign Commercial Private Limited which is respondent No. 2 and one other, namely, Mansarover Commercial Private Limited which had filed a similar complaint in the same Court earlier, were registered at Gangtok. Thereafter, a composite notice dated 22-1-91 was sent by Shri R. B. Subba, advocate on behalf of all these five companies to seven persons including the applicants alleging, inter alia, that the said publication had been made mala fide with the motive of vilifying the name and reputation of these companies, undermining their business. By this notice, the addressees were required to tender unconditional apology as per the draft enclosed therewith and to publish the same on the front page of the newspaper with the same prominence with which the news item had been published within 48 hours of the service of the notice, failing which civil and criminal proceedings were threatened. The petitioners sent a reply to this notice on 11-2-91 through Shri P. R. Seetharaman, Advocate mentioning therein that his clients were Chairman and Vice Chairman and Managing Director respectively of the company known as M/s. Bennett Coleman and Company Ltd., the publishers of the Nav Bharat Times from various places, and the Board of Directors had entrusted the editorial responsibility to Shri Rajendra Mathur, Chief Editor and the said paper was printed and published by Shri Ramesh Chandra, Executive Director. It was further mentioned that his clients did not take any part in gathering news and / or in editorial matters including printing and publishing of the newspaper and as such they had no direct knowledge of what was printed and published, and they were only concerned with the general policy of the newspaper and business aspect of the same and so the notice was uncalled for and unjustified.

(3.) Thereafter, a criminal complaint which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 10 of 1991 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate East and North Sikkim, was filed by one of the five companies mentioned above, namely, M/s. Mansarover Commercial Private Limited against six persons : the first two being the present applicants, the others being Shri Rajendra Mathur who was the Chief Editor, since deceased, Shri Ramesh Chandra, the printer and publisher, Shri Surinder Pratap Singh, Executive editor, and Shri Sanjay Pugalia, the author of the impugned item. It was alleged in the complaint that the above mentioned item was defamatory against the complainant company and had directly or indirectly harmed and injured its reputation and credibility. In paragraph 8, the complainant company alleged to have had reason to believe that the said news item had been written and published at the instance of and in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused persons who were out to harm the complainant company by publishing the above mentioned item. Paragraph 17 alleged that all the accused persons had in active connivance with each other and "with common malign" defamed the complainant company by publishing the item with the intention of causing harm, knowing of having reason to believe that the said publication would harm its reputation and credibility. All the accused were alleged to have committed offences under Ss. 500, 501, 502 read with Ss. 34 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The same Magistrate who has passed the impugned order of the present Revision, passed an order dated 7-3-1991, after recording the evidence of two witnesses, summoning all the accused persons, including the present applicants, to face the charge under Ss. 500, 501, 502, 109 and 34 I.P.C. That order was challenged by the present applicants in Criminal Revn. No. 1 of 1991 before this Court. Vide judgment dated 5-8-1991 (reported in 1992 Cri LJ 839), this Court allowed the Revision, holding that neither the complaint disclosed any facts, nor was there any evidence nor any presumption under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred as the Press Act) so as to make out a prima facie case against the applicants for making, editing, printing or publishing the offending news item and so the issue of process against them by the learned Magistrate was an abuse of the process of Court. This Court observe In the present case, the complaint does not disclose any facts so as to connect the applicants with the publication. The mere fact that applicant No. 1 is the Chairman and applicant No. 2 is the Managing Director of the Company that carries on, amongst other businesses, the business of printing and publishing the Nav Bharat Times is, by itself, not sufficient to make them liable for the publication. Paragraph 8 of the complaint runs as under :-