Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Indrajit Lankesh vs Sri K.T.Dhanu Kumar on 6 February, 2015
Bench: Chief Justice, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, A.K. Sikri
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 257 OF 2015
( @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)NO.3769 OF 2013)
INDRAJIT LANKESH ... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
K.T. DHANU KUMAR ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by the appellant, who feels aggrieved by the order dated 13th January, 2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.5007 of 2009 that was preferred by him. The said petition was filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to set aside the orders dated 17.01.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mandya in Complaint Case No.3/'09. Vide the said orders, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the complaint preferred by the respondent herein under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant sought quashing of the proceedings in the said criminal complaint but the High Court has dismissed the petition of the appellant vide the impugned order(s). That is how the appellant is before us in the present appeal. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by 3. Ramana Venkata Ganti Date: 2015.02.09 17:00:32 IST
To state the facts in brief :
Reason:
The respondent has filed a criminal complaint under Section 500 of the I.P.C. alleging that there is an office of 2 criminal defamation committed by certain persons inasmuch as in the publication titled “Lankesh Patrike” dated 25.12.2008, a defamatory article is published against the complainant. The complainant has arrayed the editor etc. of the publication as accused persons. In addition, the appellant has also been implicated the accused no.2 on the ground that he is the proprietor of the said publication “Lankesh Patrike”.
4. The submission of the appellant in the High Court was that by virtue of Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (for short 'the Act'), protection is afforded to the proprietor of the publication and, therefore, he could not have been implicated in the said complaint. Section 7 reads as under :
“In any legal proceeding whatever, as well civil as criminal, the production of a copy of such declaration as is aforesaid, attested by the seal of some court empowered by this Act to have the custody of such declarations, or, in the case of the editor, a copy of the newspaper containing his name printed on it as that of the editor shall be held (unless the contrary be proved) to be sufficient evidence, as against the person whose name shall be subscribed to such declaration, or printed on such newspaper as the case may be, that the said person was printer or publisher, or printer and publisher (according to the words of the said declaration may be) of every portion of every newspaper whereof the title shall correspond with the title of the newspaper mentioned in the declaration or the editor of every portion of that issue of the newspaper of which a copy is produced”.
As is clear from a reading of the aforesaid provision, in order to avail the protection under the aforesaid provision, a declaration 3 in the prescribed format has to be filed. The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant with the observation that the declaration filed did not disclose the name of the owner.
5. It is pointed out by Mr.Sharan Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the High Court has committed an error in not reading the declaration properly. He argued that the declaration under Section 5 of the said Act was made before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bangalore by one Shri Siddappa Arakere as regards the change of the printer, publisher and editor the said magazine “Lankesh Patrike”. In terms of the said declaration, Shri Siddappa Arakere was described as the publisher and printer as well as editor of the said magazine. To substantiate this submission, the said declaration by Mr.Siddappa Arakere, as filed, is produced as Annexure- P-1. From a reading of this declaration, we find merit in the contention raised by the appellant.
6. Notice of these proceedings has been duly served upon the respondent-complainant. However, nobody has put in appearance on his behalf.
7. In the absence of any rebuttal, there is no reason to dis-believe the declaration which is produced by the appellant.
We thus find that the appellant satisfies the conditions contained in Section 7 of the Act and, therefore, he cannot be made accused in the complaint under Section 500 of the I.P.C. filed by the 4 respondent. We thus allow this appeal and quash the proceedings qua the appellant in Complaint Case No.3/'09.
Ordered accordingly.
….........................CJI.
(H.L. DATTU) …...........................J. (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA ) …...........................J. (A.K. SIKRI) NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 06, 2015
5
ITEM NO.77 COURT NO.1 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3769/2013
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13/01/2012 in CRLP No. 5007/2009 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka at Bangalore) INDRAJIT LANKESH Petitioner(s) VERSUS SRI K.T.DHANU KUMAR Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for stay and office report) Date : 06/02/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI For Petitioner(s) Mr.Sharan Thakur, Adv.
Mr.Vijaykumar Paradesi,Adv.
Dr. Sushil Balwada,Adv.
For Respondent(s) NONE UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed, in terms of the signed order.
(G.V.Ramana) (Vinod Kulvi)
Court Master Asstt.Registrar
(Signed order is placed on the file)