Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.
M/s Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., Mumbai and Others - Petitioners
Versus
Dr. K. Sarat Chandra, Hyderabad and Another rep. P.P - Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 5448 of 2014
Decided on : 27-11-2015
Criminal Produce Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Press and Regulation of Books Act,1897 – Sections 1-7 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 499 and 500 – Sought for quash of proceedings – case of the Complainant in nutshell is that - he completed MBBS from Andhra Medical College and MD in Cardiology from PIME&S, Chandigarh,(during 1981-1989) and is working in NIMS in Cardiology Dept., w.e.f.14-11-2003, as faculty member till 13-03-2007 and later as Addl. Professor, also elected as president of Cardiological society of India in 2001, published about 30 scientific articles, served for Diplomat National Board and for D.M. as Examiner, organised National conference of Cardiological society of India, at Hyderabad in 2007, Chairman of National Interventional Council during 2008-09, attended as faculty in the Universities/Hospitals of Serbia, China, Vietnam, Singapore and as fellow of European society of Cardiology and American College of Cardiology, currently editor of Indian Heart Journal, earned good reputation in Cardiology and in society, discharging his duties sincerely with no complaints from any corner, even after resigned from NIMS by serving in Image Hospitals – Held, It is a fidelity to take cognizance for the offence under Section 500 I.P.C and abuse of process in asking to face trial before the Magistrate and the subsequent expression of Sewakram in Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande also speaks the same therefrom suffice to say from the delivery later that when the material itself before the Court shows the accused is entitled to the protection from prosecution for the offences under Section 500 I.P.C from the case falls under any of the exceptions provided in Section 499 I.P.C in saying no offence made out – Continuation is not even in dispute but for saying at the instance of the ex-director Prasada Rao. It is also even admitted the ward under the control of the complainant while the complainant is discharging the duty as doctor in N.I.M.S. That is suffice to say for such piece of attribution even not find place in the inter-departmental enquiry, per se cannot be said false and per se when cannot be said intentionally or knowingly or by reason to believe to disrepute and when per se cannot be said with malice and when per se shows within exception 8 to Section 499 I.P.C for the conduct of the complainant a public servant, by such press statement to the public who got lawful authority being rulers of the State By the people, For the people and of the people and not even with sanction of the State Government through Public Prosecutor made the complaint when it is the conduct pointed out in the imputation while discharging public duty, when the Magistrate before taking cognizance from the material when supposed to consider as to the material on its face allows the case falls within the exceptions to Section 499 I.P.C, in not doing so in taking cognizance, same is nothing but a lame prosecution that cannot be allowed to continue in futility to make the accused to face the ordeal despite ends of Justice requires to quash the sub-serve – Criminal petition is allowed.
B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.
The criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/A.1 to A.3(Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., rep. by its Manager (as authorised signatory), Kingshuk Nag-Chief Editor and Anil Kumar-Printer of Times of India, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings of C.C. No. 849 of 2013 (1) on the file of the XXIII Special Magistrate at Erramanzil Hyderabad, which is outcome of private complaint dated 18.10.2012 of the 1st respondent-Dr. K. Sarat Chandra, that was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C., after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and with reference to the news item dated 27.11.2011.
1. Originally C.C.No. 25 of 2013 renumbered as 87 of 2013-since transferred at post congnizance stage from the file of the III Addl. Metropolitam Magistrate to IV Special Magistrate,
2. The case of the Complainant in nutshell is that - he completed MBBS from Andhra Medical College and MD in Cardiology from PIME&S, Chandigarh,(during 1981-1989) and is working in NIMS in Cardiology Dept., w.e.f.14-11-2003, as faculty member till 13-03-2007 and later as Addl. Professor, also elected as president of Cardiological society of India in 2001, published about 30 scientific articles, served for Diplomat National Board and for D.M. as Examiner, organised National conference of Cardiological society of India, at Hyderabad in 2007, Chairman of National Interventional Council during 2008-09, attended as faculty in the Universities/Hospitals of Serbia, China, Vietnam, Singapore and as fellow of European society of Cardiology and American College of Cardiology, currently editor of Indian Heart Journal, earned good reputation in Cardiology and in society, discharging his duties sincerely with no complaints from any corner, even after resigned from NIMS by serving in Image Hospitals, Hyderabad. The Accused 1-3, Owner, Editor, Publisher and Printer of the News Paper-Times of India, responsible collectively for selection, printing and publishing news items as per Sections 1-7 of the Press and Regulation of Books Act,1897 (the Act), published the news item dated 27-11-2011, under the caption 'Three NIMS Doctors suspended' alleging that the accused in the newspaper dated 27.11.2011 published a news item under the heading 'Three NIMS doctors suspended' interalia alleging that the complainant along with one Dr. Nimma Satyanarayana, medical Superintendent, and another Dr. Sharath Prasad, Deputy Medical Superintendent have been suspended for 'facilitating' the stay of an alleged under trial prisoner Sri Jairam Reddy, that the news item further alleges that the three doctors were suspended for 'criminal breach of trust' and that the doctors sheltered Jairam Reddy though he didn't require any treatment and that they allegedly prepared three discharge summaries on different days to show to the previous director Dr. P.V. Ramesh, that the murder accused was already discharged as per the orders and that despite the orders to discharge he was allowed to stay in the hospital for 20 days, that the news item further alleged that the enquiry conducted by the health department and NIMS found that the complainant who 'treated' Reddy got Rs. 7.00 lakh, Dr. Nimma Satyanarayana got Rs. 5.00 lakh and Dr. Sharath Prasad got Rs. 3.75 lakh from him, that all the allegations in the news item dated 27.11.2011 are hereinafter collectively referred to as 'the news item' for brevity, that the complainant craves the leave of the Court to read the entire text of the news item as part and parcel of the complaint. That the allegation in the news item that the complainant was suspended for criminal breach of trust is false to the knowledge of the accused and has been made with an intention to defame the complainant, that the NIMS has not lodged any complaint to the police about the commission of the offence of criminal breach of trust against the complainant, that the news item itself alleges that the complainant was suspen
gpt-4
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
