T. M. THOMAS ISSAC Vs. SANTIAGO MARTIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Words, denigrating the Respondent and maligning his character were allegedly employed by the Petitioner, when he was the Finance Minister of the concerned State, in his address to the Press, post his participation in the GST Council meeting, held on 19/12/2019. The Respondent was aggrieved by the slanderous statement, which thereby gave rise to a Complaint under Sec. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, the 'Cr.P.C.'), in the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, East Sikkim, at Gangtok. The Trial Court, vide the impugned Order dtd. 2/3/2021, in Private Complaint Case No.09 of 2020 (Santiago Martin vs. Dr. T. M. Thomas Issac and Others), after examining the Complainant, his two witnesses and on hearing Learned Counsel for the Complainant found sufficient materials to proceed against the Petitioner under Ss. 499/500/501/502 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, the 'IPC'). Cognizance was taken and summons issued to the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the impugned Orders, the Petitioner is before this Court under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking its quashment.

(2.) Before considering the merits of the matter, it is imperative to clarify here that, in Private Complaint Case No.09 of 2020 (supra), before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, East Sikkim, at Gangtok, the Respondent herein, as Petitioner, had alleged that the accused persons no.2 to 10 had published the article in the newspaper, which contained the defamatory statement viz., 'Lottery mafia like Santiago Martin will not be allowed to operate in Kerala', attributed to the accused no.1, the Petitioner herein. The Court, vide the Order dtd. 2/3/2021, took cognizance of the offence under Ss. 499/500/501/502 and 120B of the IPC against all the persons arrayed as accused and issued summons vide the impugned Order, dtd. 3/3/2021.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner put forth the contention that, the Petitioner has erroneously been booked for the offences under Sec. 499/500/501/502 and 120B of the IPC. The Order of the Magistrate lacks application of judicial mind as vide a subsequent Order, Sec. 499 of the IPC against the Petitioner, was removed by her sans legal provision for such an action. That, the Petitioner did not print or engrave any defamatory matter against the Respondent, hence no charge lies against him under Sec. 501 of the IPC. Sec. 502 of the IPC pertains to the sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter, for which the Petitioner in no way can be held accountable as he had taken no such steps. As he did not conspire with any person, the offence under Sec. 120B of the IPC is entirely irrelevant. That, the Learned Trial Court could have proceeded against the Petitioner, if at all, only under Sec. 500 of the IPC.