SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(SC) 389

G.T.NANAVATI, V.N.KHARE
Jawaharlaldarda – Appellant
Versus
Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar – Respondent


Judgment

Nanavati, J.-Respondent No. 1-Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar filed a complaint in the court of CJM, Nanded, alleging that by publishing a news item in its newspaper “Daily Loknath”, on 4.2.84, Mr. J.L. Darda, who was then the Chief Editor of that Daily, Mr. Rajinder Darda, who was the Editor of the Daily, Mr. Madhukar, who was the Executive Editor of the Daily, Mr. Deshmukh, who was connected with publication of the Daily and M/s. Darda Printo Crafts Pvt. Ltd., who were owners and proprietors of the Daily, have committed offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 read with Section 34 IPC. The complaint was filed on 2.2.87.

2. Learned CJM issued process against all the five accused. This order passed by the learned CJM was challenged by the five accused before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded. The learned Judge quashed that order as he was of the opinion that by publishing that news item none of the accused had committed any offence. That order was challenged by the complainant by filing a petition in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court was of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge misinterpreted the publication.









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top