Advocates:
['ADV ARUN DE SA', '', 'ADV SIDHESH SHET', 'ADV ZAIN VELJEE', 'ADV AGNETHA S MONIZ', 'ADV SARDESAI SAHIL SAMIR', 'ADV S R RIVANKAR', '', 'ADV JANAVI KHORATE']

1 Cr. W.P. 96/2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 96 OF 2019.

1. Shri Manish karapurkar,

(Then) Publisher, Goa Edition

The Times of India,

having its Branch office at

Vivenda de Hassan,

D. Bandodkar Road, Miramar,

Panaji 403 001 and presently

Residing at 3 F 1, Dukle Residency,

Tambdi Mati, Taleigao,

Goa – 403 001.

2. Shri K. R. Sreenivas,

(Then) Editor, Goa Edition,

The Times of India,

having its Branch office at

'Vivenda de Hassan,

D. Bandodkar Road, Miramar,

Panaji 403 001 and presently

Residing at Daily Thanthi,

No.86, E.V.K. Sampath Road,

Vepery, Chennai – 600007. ... Petitioners.

Versus

1. Mr. Antonio Braganza,

Major, son of late Gregorio

Braganza,

Resident of H.No. E-3/40A,

Tivai Vaddo, Calangute,

Bardez, Goa.

2 Cr. W.P. 96/2019

2. Mrs. Aldila Braganza,

Major, daughter of late

Avelino Fernandes,

Presently residing at

No.E-3/40A,

Bardez, Goa.

3. State

Through PP,

High Court of Bombay

at Panaji, Goa. ... Respondents

Shri Arun Bras de Sa, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri S.R.Rivankar, Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent

No.3.

Respondent No.2 in person.

Coram:- NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J.

Reserved on : 11.12.2019.

Pronouned on: 18.12.2019.

JUDGMENT:

Heard Shri Arun Bras De Sa, learned Advocate for the

Petitioners and Shri S.R.Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor on

behalf of the State/respondent no.3.

2. Rule

3 Cr. W.P. 96/2019

3. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel

for the parties.

4. Respondent no.2 waives service and Shri S. R. Rivankar,

learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of respondent no.3.

5. This Writ Petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. takes exception to the order

passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, North Goa, Panaji

dismissing the Revision Application filed by the petitioner

dated 03.10.2017 pursuant to which it confirmed the order of

the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class issuing summons to

the petitioners herein.

6.

Heard Shri Arun Bras de Sa learned Advocate for the

petitioner who contended at the outset as to how the

reportage of the FIR could constitute defamation. He adverted

to the press release issued by the Calangute Police Station

and submitted that the petitioners had published the said

information as given by the Calangute Police and who had

subsequently filed a charge sheet against the respondent

no.2. He adverted to the FIR lodged by one Antoneto D’Souza

at the Calangute Police Station alleging illegal acts to the

respondent nos.1 and 2 and the newspaper report released by

them wherein due care was taken to prefix the word alleged

4 Cr. W.P. 96/2019

and allegedly vis a vis the press release of the Police.

Therefore, no offence of defamation was at all made out. The

learned Addl. Sessions Judge in her impugned order had

clearly recorded a finding that the reportage as made by the

petitioners were justified as the complaint produced on record

did allege the offences against the respondent nos.1 and 2.

Yet however, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge at para 18

referred to the fact that there was no allegation in the

complaint that the respondent nos.1 and 2 had represented

themselves as Indians though they were foreign nationals and

therefore concluding that the respondent no.2 wa