The judgment established the importance of knowledge and consent for defamatory publication and clarified the extent of vicarious liability in criminal law, particularly in the context of defamation charges against a newspaper and its employees.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for records in C.C.No.144 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram and quash the same.)

1. Challenging the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.144 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, the present criminal original petition has been filed.

2. The case of the complainant is that The news item published in The New Indian Express dated 23.08.2018 with the caption “HC Raps Estranged Couple, School over fake documents and in the online news edition EDEX Live a news material was posted on 22.08.2018 with the caption “Madras High Courts rebukes couple, who got hold of fake transfer certificate for children”.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that totally five accused in C.C.No.144 of 2021, in which, the 1st accused is the New Indian Express, the 2nd accused is described as Editorial Director, the 3rd accused is Editor in chief, the 4th Accused in chief reporter and the 5th accused is the reporter of the New Indian Express. The petitioners are the first and second accused. As per the declaration made in the paper, A1/The New Indian Express Mr.Manoj Kumar Chontalia is shown as Chairman of the Board and the A3 is shown as Editor in Chief and another person is shown as Residential Editor, whom is made responsible for the selection of news under the PRB Act. As per the online paper is concerned in the declaration, A3 is shown as Editor and A4 as Edex Editor. As far as the 1st accused is concerned, it is the name of the Newspaper, publication and it is not a legal entity or a juristic person and hence, it cannot be made liable under section 500 of I.P.C since the imputations must have been made with the intention to harm or with the knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned. Thus, it is clear that intention to cause harm is the most essential sine qua non for an offence under section 499 I.P.C. The offence punishable under section 500 of I.P.C requires a blame worthy mind and is not a statutory offence requiring no men rea. The 1stacused is a private limited company and not a individual, hence mensrea cannot be attributed against A1, mensrea is the essential ingredient in the said offence. It is submitted that mensrea would be missing as a company it is a juristic entity or an artificial person. It is submitted unless the section of a particular statue will permit the application of the said section to a limited company, the limited company cannot be prosecuted.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that the 2nd accused is shown as Editorial Director in the complaint but in none of the declarations made by the paper, there is no reference to any Editorial Director, but the name of the Editor and Residential Editor is mentioned. It is further submitted that as per the Act Editor means, the person, who controls the selection of the matter that is published in the newspaper. Further, the presumption under section 7 of the Act will apply to only persons mentioned in the declaration as made under section 5 of the Act, so, the 2nd accused will not be made liable for the offence under section 500 of I.P.C. In the complaint, except the complainant no other witnesses has been cited and it is not the case of the complainant that he was known to the accused persons or that he is acquainted with the accused persons. The complainant has made bald allegations in the complaint saying that A4 and A5 are functioning under the supervision of A2 and A3 and there is no material to show that how the complainant becomes aware of it. The whole allegations are based on his presumption and summaries and there is not even having primafacie material to support his allegations against the 2nd petitioner herein. Further, contended that in response to the email send by the complainant that on 01.09.2018 the clarification was published in the