S. BARMAN RAY, J.

( 1 ) S. Barman Ray, J.-By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has prayed for quashing the cognizance taken and the process issued upon it by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 15th Court under section 500/34 IPC in complaint case No. 3859/1998. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has prayed for quashing the cognizance taken and the process issued upon it by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 15th Court under section 500/34 IPC in complaint case No. 3859/1998.

( 2 ) THE case in brief is that the petitioner Zee telefilms Limited is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The Company is engaged in the business of production and procurement of films, tele-serials programmes in news and current affairs etc. and telecast the same in various channels of Zee net-work, namely, Zee TV, Zee news and Zee cinema, all owned and managed by the Asia Today Limited, a company incorporated in Mauritius. Petitioner Company entered into a contractual agreement with the said Asia Today Limited to supply it with various programmes to telecast the same on the said channels.

( 3 ) FURTHER case of the petitioner is that management of the petitioner Company is carried on by the Board of Directors of the Petitioner Company. On or about May, 31, 1999 Petitioner Company was served with summons issued by the said Court in connection with complaint case No. 3859/98 under section 500/34 IPC Said complaint case was instituted against the petitioner and others on the basis of a complaint lodged by O. P. No. 1 M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited, a Public Limited Company and Opposite Party No. 2 Ashim Bhowmick being a Manager (Finance) of Opposite Party No. 1. On the basis of the complaint learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under section 500/34 IPC and issued summons upon the petitioner company and others. It has been, inter alia, alleged in the said complaint that a verification campaign of libel/slander has been unleashed by the petitioner company and others against the complainant. As a part of the said slanderous campaign a programme called "verdict-98" was telecast on 13. 10. 98 and 14. 10. 98 on Zee India Television Channel. By telecasting the said "verdict-98" programme based on "utter falsehood, half-truth, suppression of truth and mis-representation," complainant group of the companies was defamed "in every possible way". Further details of facts are not necessary for disposal of this application.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said process/summons served upon the petitioner company, this application was filed to quash the case so far as it relates the petitioner Company.

( 5 ) I have heard Mr. P. K. Ghosh learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr S. Ghosh learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties.

( 6 ) MR. P. K. Ghosh contended that petitioner Company being a juristic entity, it is incapable of committing of any offence of which mens rea is one of the essential ingredients. Offence of defamation as defined in section 499 IPC is one such offence and mens rea is its essence and hence petitioner Company being a juristic entity is incapable of committing such offence. He, therefore, contended the summon issued upon the petitioner company must be quashed.

( 7 ) ON the otherhand Mr. S. Ghosh learned counsel for the O. Ps. contended that even a Company or an Association of person can be prosecuted for offences of which mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offences alleged. In support of his contention Mr. S. Ghosh cited number of case laws.

( 8 ) OFFENCE of defamation is defined in section 499 IPC. It is apparent from the very definition that intention of the accused who make such imputation must be to harm the reputation or he must make it with knowledge or reasonable belief with such imputation will harm the reputation of the person concerned. Therefore

Click Here to Read the rest of this document