SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 13

M.B.SHAH, K.T.THOMAS
Vivek Goenka – Appellant
Versus
Y. R. Patil – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

2. There is no reason to quash the prosecution at this stage because the imputations are per as defamatory. It is for the accused concerned to show that they are protected by one of the exceptions in Section 499 of IPC as publication is also undisputed.

3. However, we do not think it necessary to retain accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the array of the accused as their connection with the publication is too remote even on the averments made in the complaint. Hence, we order them to be deleted from the party array. Accused Nos. 1 and 4 in the complaint will be reranked as accused Nos. 1 and 2 and would be proceeded against. It is open to those accused to apply for exemption from personal appearance and on such application being made the trial Court shall exempt them personal from appearance on the following conditions :

1. A counsel on their behalf would be present in the court whenever their case is taken up.

2. They will not dispute their identity as the accused in the case.

3. They will be present in court when such presence is imperatively needed.

With these directions the appeal is disposed of.

Appeal disposed of.

****************

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top