ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

1^st petitioner happens to be a Limited Liability Partnership Firm, established under the provisions of Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, and 2^nd petitioner is one of its partners, managing the affairs of business. They are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 7.12.2022 entered by the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, Bengaluru, whereby their application filed u/s.9(3) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 has been negatived and eventually, the matter would go to the trial.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently argues that setting the criminal law in motion is not a child’s play vide Apex Court decision in M/S PEPSI FOODS LIMITED vs. SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGTISTRATE, (1998) 5 SCC 749 and therefore, only on the basis of a Newspaper Report, the cognizance of offence could not have been taken. He also draws attention of the court to several evidentiary material that would prima facie tend to show that the petitioners are accomplishing the project in question under the orders of Bangalore Development Authority, an entity established under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1978. He also argues that, the Special Court has no power to take suo moto cognizance of the offences under the said Act.

3. Learned AGA appearing for the official respondents and the learned Panel Counsel appearing for the BBMP oppose the petition contending that the Special Court has got power to take suo moto cognizance of offence and therefore, cognizance now taken cannot be faltered; further, even on the basis of Newspaper Reports such cognizance can be taken, as has happened in this case; it is open to the petitioners to face the trial and come out untainted by demonstrating their innocence. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we are inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

(a) There is force in the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that ordinarily, no cognizance of offence can be taken only on the basis of Newspaper Reports. It is now well settled that a statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible in evidence in absence of the maker of the statement appearing in court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. The question as to admissibility of newspaper reports having been considered by the Apex Court in SAMANTH N.BALAKRISHNA vs. GEORGE FERNANDES, (1969) 3 SCC 238, it is observed as under:

“ A newspaper item without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is or no value. It is at best a second- hand secondary evidence. It is well known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publishes it. In this process the truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible…”.

(b) True it is, that the court below has treated the subject application of the petitioners u/s 9(3) of the 2011 Act which employs the expressions like ‘frivolous’ & ‘vexatious’. Such words need not be given the dictionary meaning inasmuch as law is not a slave of dictionaries.

True spirit of the application has to be considered on merits so that the abuse potential of proceedings at the hands of Special Courts like this, is avoided. A careful perusal of this provision approximates it to the provisions of Sec.227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. We agree with the contention of learned Panel Counsel appearing for the BBMP that the Special Court has discretion to take suo moto cognizance of the offences punishable under the provisions of 2011 Act. However, that does not mean an erratic exercise of discretion is sustainable. Lord Halsbury