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

1994 Supreme(Kar) 304

Karnataka High Court
Prabhu Chawlaand - Appellant
Versus
A.U.Sheriff - Respondent
Decided On : 10-27-94
CRIMINAL PETITION : 342 of 1993

Advocates:
C.V.NAGESH, M.T.NANAIAH

The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an offence of defamation to be made out, the allegations in the complaint must prima facie constitute defamation against the complainant.

Headnote:

Section 482 - Defamation - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 500, read with Section 34 I. P. C. - [Section 500, Section 34 IPC]

Fact of the Case:

The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners for printing and publishing defamatory articles. The court found that the articles did not prima facie constitute defamation against the respondent, and therefore quashed the proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the articles did not contain defamatory imputations against the respondent and that taking cognizance for an offence under Section 500 IPC based on the allegations in the complaint was impermissible.

Issues: The main issue was whether the articles prima facie constituted defamation against the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the articles did not make out any offence of defamation against the respondent, and taking cognizance for such an offence based on the allegations in the complaint amounted to an abuse of process of court.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners and two others.

A. B. MURGOD, J.

( 1 ) THE present petition under Section 482, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed for setting aside the order dated 14-12-1992 passed in Criminal Case No. 15178 of 1992 on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Ban galore City ordering registration of the case against the petitioners and two others for offence punishable under Section 500, read with Section 34 I. P. C. and directing process against them for their appearance before the Court, and to quash the entire proceedings against the petitioners.

( 2 ) THE respondent Sri A. U. Sheriff performed the marriage of his niece Reshma Sheriff with one Syed Manzoor Ahmed, son of Janab Syed Ibrahim Saheb, Proprietor : Master Travels, Bangalore on Sunday the 14/06/1992 in Chandrasagar Mar riage Hall. Jayanagar, Bangalore and that in that connection he had printed and issued marriage invi tations in which it was printed as under :-"with Best Compliments from Hon. Minister for Railways, Alhaj C. K. Jaffer Sheriff and his Fam ily. "thereafter in the Indian Express News Paper dated 24/07/1992 published from Bangalore an article by Ashwini Sarin, the 4th petitioner in the petition reading as under was printed and published. "by Ashwini Sarin, New Delhi Rs. 600 crore deal as dowry ? It may seem incredible but that is what Union Railway Minister C. K. Jaffer Sharief has apparently done. Even as the Central Bureau of Investigation is looking into the leakage of top secret Government documents regarding the purchase of 6000 horse power electric locomotives from Asea Brown Boveri, starting details about the murky deals have begun to surface. The $ 190, million contract was finally decided by the Railway Ministry in favour of Swiss multina tional Asea Brown Boveri early this year after the Railway Minister hastened the award of the contract despite serious objections raised earlier by the Ten ders Committee of his ministry, the Department of Economic Affairs and even the Committee of Secre taries. Mr. Sharief seems to have mastered the art of mixing family interest with official work. His niece, Reshma Sheriff, was married to Syed Manzoor Ahmed on June 14. As it happens, the bridegroom is employed with the Riyadh-based Arabian Electrical Industries Limited, being run in cooperation with the Asea Brown Boveri. The bridegroom's boss came all the way from Riyadh to Bangalore to attend the marriage. According to highly placed sources, Mr. Sharief was keen to visit Mecca in Saudi Arbia towards the end of June but the visit was scuttled when the Prime Minister, Mr. P. V. Narasimha Rao, turned down the proposal and advised the Railway Minister to post pone his visit. The Prime Minister had, in fact, acted on advice from top intelligence agencies which had submitted a detailed report on the award of the locomotive contract to ABB. Indian Railways had been deliberating the pur chase of high horse power electric locomotives for a long time and among the main contenders for the deal were Asea Brown Boveri and Hitachi of Japan in collaboration with Bharat Heavy Electricals Lim ited. However, Mr. Sharief's interest in the deal began to show, source said, ever since his niece's mar riage proposal reached its final stage. The contract to ABB and the marriage seem to have been finalised around the same period. The Opposition did raise the issue of ABB deal in the Rajya Sabha during its last session but to no avail. Mr. Sharief adopted a stonewalling attitude and refused to answer the Opposition's specific queries about the controversial deal. In any case, the Rajya Sabha debate took place on the last day of the session. The matter is yet to be taken up in the Lok Sabha. The $ 190 million locomotive contract had been embroiled in controversy from the very beginning. But the undue haste which Mr. Sharief showed to finalise the deal in favour of ABB by ignoring the earlier recommendations of the Tenders Committee of his own Ministry has raised doubts about the d


















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 Back to top