These two petitions questioning continuance of two separate criminal cases against the petitioners' newspapers are being disposed of by this common judgment because of the common question of law involved, though facts giving rise to these petitions are different.

2. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.10/2011 are the Executive Editor and publishers of Marathi newspaper Pudhari. Before 22/11/2009, a meeting was held in Menezes Braganza Institution at Panaji. Advocate Govind Pansare – the accused no.4 and Dr. Narendra Dabholkar- the accused no.5 in the complaint, addressed the said meeting. The petitioners' newspaper published this news on 22/11/2009. The news item refers to Sanatan Sanstha and reports that Advocate Govind Pansare stated that the institutions like Sanatan Sanstha were harming religion. Similar were the observations of Dr. Narendra Dabholkar reported in the petitioners' newspaper.

3. After this news item was published, on behalf of Sanatan Sanstha, Shri Virendra Pandurang Marathe claiming to be its Managing Trustee, filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ponda for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code against the petitioners, Advocate Panasare and Dr. Narendra Dabholkar. It was alleged that this publication was defamatory and contained imputations, which were false to the knowledge of the accused. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class examined Virendra Marathe and one Shriram Parshuram.Shriram Parshuram stated that because of the article published in daily Pudhari, a doubt was created in his mind about the activities of Sanatan Sanstha. Learned Magistrate then directed issuance of process for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.

4. The petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.47/2012 is the Editor of daily Lokmat published from Panaji. On 07/11/2009, a news item was published in daily Lokmat with Sangali date line. The headline was that some Sadhaks i.e. seekers, had disappeared from the complainant institution's Ashram i.e. seminary, because of loss of mental balance. The news referred to the fact that rules in the seminary were very strict and if a seeker committed any mistake, he was punished with being made to fast (starve). The news also mentioned that seekers suffered these punishments happily. It was also stated that training was provided to the seekers as to what they should do in the event of injustice against Hindus. A suspicion as to source of funding was expressed in the news item. The news item also mentioned that the seekers were used to disrupt communal harmony and that one Malgonda Patil, who was killed in Margao bomb explosion, was a seeker of Sanatan who was also involved in riots in Miraj.

5. After this news item was published, Virendra Pandurang Marathe, the Managing Trustee of Sanatan Sanstha, filed a complaint against the petitioners and the publisher and printer of daily Lokmat for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 read with Section 34 of the Penal rned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ponda examined the complainant and one Shriram Prasad Kushte and by order dated 01/03/2011, directed issuance of process for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code against all the accused persons.

6. The complainant Sanstha filed Special Civil Suit No.1/2010/A against the petitioner in Writ Petition No.47/2012 i.e. and the Printer and Publisher of Lokmat newspaper for damages of Rs.10 Lakhs on account of defamation caused by the same article, which is the subject matter criminal complaint. The plaint was rejected by order dated 21/12/2010 and an appeal is pending in this Court.

7. The accused persons i.e. petitioners in both these matters filed Criminal Revision Applications before the Court of Sessions seeking quashing of the processes issued against them. These revision a