Back
2023 Supreme(Telangana) 646
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SURENDER, J.
Unnikrishnan Anchery and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos. 2045, 2314 of 2016
Decided On : 29-08-2023
The burden of proof, specific allegations, and criminal liability are essential in defamation cases, and the prima facie evidence of defamatory publication can influence the court's decision.
Headnote:
Defamation - Criminal Conspiracy - IPC 500, 501, 120-B - Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 - Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the applicability of IPC sections 500, 501, and 120-B, as well as the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986. Key legal provisions such as the burden of proof, criminal conspiracy, and defamation were interpreted and influenced the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a defamation complaint against a magazine and its directors, editor, and other staff for publishing a defamatory article about a public servant. The accused sought to quash the proceedings, arguing lack of specific allegations and criminal conspiracy.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the proceedings against the directors, citing lack of specific allegations and criminal liability. However, the proceedings were allowed to continue against the magazine and other accused persons due to specific allegations against them.
Issues: The issues included the applicability of defamation laws, criminal conspiracy, and the liability of directors for the publication of defamatory content.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for specific allegations and evidence to establish criminal liability. It also highlighted the burden of proof on the accused and the prima facie evidence of defamatory publication.
Final Decision: The proceedings against the directors were quashed, while they were allowed to continue against the magazine and other accused persons.
ORDER :
1. Criminal Petition No. 2045 of 2016 is filed by A3 to A5 and Criminal Petition No. 2314 of 2016 is filed by A1, A2, A6 to A8 seeking to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 2 of 2016 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad filed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 500, 501 & 120-B of IPC.
2. The Special Public Prosecutor appointed by the Government, filed a private complaint against A1/Outlook Publishing (India) Private Limited and the other accused 2 to 8 for defaming the public servant namely Smt. Smita Sabharwal, I.A.S. who was working as Additional Secretary to Chief Minister, Government of Telangana. The defamatory publication was dated 6th July, 2015 issue in Outlook English weekly magazine under the column ‘DEEP THROAT’ along with a multi-coloured Caricature as a Box item. The publication reads as follows:
“DEEP
THROAT
TELANGANA
NO BORING BABU
The portfolio of junior bureaucrat, who is posted in the Telangana, CM’s office, is a mystery. She used to be posted in a district earlier. But things changed all of a sudden after the elections. The lay is present at every meeting and seen in almost every official photograph sent out by the CMO. But what she does exactly is a puzzle. She makes a fashion statement with her lovely saris and serves as “eye candy” at meetings, admit leading party politicians. In fact, it’s this bureaucrat who class up other officials in the CMO and asks them to come for meetings. She knows exactly what time the CM will arrive and leave the office. The lovely lady, known for her ethnic style, recently stunned all by appearing in trendy trouser and frilly top at a fashion show. And for one, she wasn’t sitting in an official meeting. But this appearance too made for a great photo op.”
3. According to the complaint, A2 was printer and publisher of the magazine of the Outlook. A3 to A5 are directors of A1 company, who are responsible for the conduct of day to day management of A1 company. A6 is the Editor, A7 is the person who has drawn the caricature and A8 is the Assistant Editor of Outlook at Hyderabad, who contributed the defamatory publication.
4. It is alleged in the complaint that all the accused 2 to 8 have entered into criminal conspiracy to defame Smt. Smita Sabharwal, IAS and bring disrepute to her. The publication has negatively impacted Smt. Smita Sabharwal’s personal and professional life including her reputation as an Officer.
5. The complaint was filed by the Special Public Prosecutor appointed by the State on 23.12.2015. Learned Sessions Judge issued summons to the petitioners to face trial.
6. Sri T. Pradyumnakumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that article does not make a mention about Smt. Smita Sabharwal at all. On the basis of an assumption that the article was referring to Smita Sabharwal, IAS, the complaint was filed. There is nothing in the article to substantiate that the article was referring to her.
7. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that no specific allegations are leveled against A3 to A5, who are the Directors. They cannot be made vicariously liable only for the reason of being the Directors of A1 company by stating in the complaint that they were responsible for day to day affairs. Further, A2 is the Whole-time Director and he cannot be made liable for the acts of author of the article. There are no reasons given for taking cognizance by the learned Sessions Judge. Taking cognizance in a criminal case is a serious matter and persons cannot be summons mechanically without application of mind. He relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.M. Mathew vs. State of Kerala and Another, (1992) 1 SCC 217 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for a Magistrate to take cognizance as against Chief Editor, there must be positive averments in the complaint of knowledge of defamatory character of the matter. Finding that there was no such allegation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the
