Calcutta High Court
Ananda Bazar Patrika (P) Ltd. And Anr. vs State Of West Bengal And Anr. on 19 November, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005CRILJ1126
ORDER Debiprasad Sengupta, J.
1. In the present application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of proceeding being case No. C-241/2003 under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta.
2. The aforesaid proceeding was initiated on the basis of a complaint lodged by the present opposite party No. 2. In the petition of complaint, it was alleged that against the promulgation of the Ordinance, by which the rates of Court-fees were enhanced, the Bar Council of W.B. started movement against such enhancement of Court-fees and asked the practising lawyers for abstaining themselves from attending Courts. When the lawyers were observing "Cease Work," a news item was published in the editorial column of the daily Bengali newspaper Ananda Bazar Patrika on 23-11-2002, in which the character of the lawyers in this country was scandalised. The defamatory publication dated 23-11-2002 under the heading "Kaje Jog din" is as follows:
(Vernacular matter omitted...... Ed.)
3. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused No. 2 being the editor of accused No. 1 published the scandalous statements concerning lawyers of the country with the full knowledge that such imputation shall cause harm to the reputation of the lawyers and as such the accused/petitioner No. 2 being the Editor of the accused No. 1 has committed an offence punishable under Section 500, I.P.C.
4. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the lawyers do not constitute a definite and a clear association or collection of persons coming within the purview of Explanation 2 of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and hence the allegations in the petition of complaint, even if believed to be true and taken in its entirety, do not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence. It is alleged in the petition of complaint that the alleged defamatory statements/imputations have been made against the lawyers as a class, which cannot constitute an association or collection of persons who can be defamed by the operation of Explanation (2) of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned Advocate of the petitioner, the initiation and continuation of the proceeding as aforesaid will be an abuse of the process of the Court: and the same is liable to be quashed.
5. In support of his contention, the learned Advocate of the petitioners relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1985 (2) Cal HN 477 (M. J. Akbar v. Nurul Alam). From a reading of the said judgment, it appears that in the English daily "Telegraph," an article was published under the caption "There is danger ahead." While discussing the then political situation in the country, the writer stated in that article -- "Incidentally district lawyers are invariably most corrupt persons." One Nurul Alam, an Advocate of Suri filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Birbhum alleging that the imputation was intentionally published to cause harm to his reputation and of other district lawyers of the country. The proceeding was challenged by the accused/petitioners before this Court on the ground that for the impugned publication no action can be taken under Section 500, I.P.C. at the instance of any individual district lawyer, because the imputation does not relate to an identifiable, definite and determinate body of persons. In such circumstances, it was held by the Division Bench of this Court as follows :
"From the decisions cited above, the real test appears to be whether the class or body in respect of which the defamatory words have been used is a definite or determinate body so that the imputation in question can be said to relate to its individual members or components enabling an individual member of it to maintain a complaint. If the class or body in respect of which the defamatory words have been used is not a definite and determinate body, an individual member of such body cannot maintain an action for defamation unless he satisfies the Court that the imputation has been made against him personally and he is the person aimed at. The question, therefore, boils down to this:--
Whether the words 'district lawyers' connote a definite and determinate body or persons. If they do, the impugned proceeding is maintainable. If not, it is an abuse of the process of Court and must be quashed.
************* In such a situation, we are unable to hold that the defamatory imputation against the 'district lawyers' would be defamation within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 499, Indian Penal Code and that such imputation would be defamation of the opposite party No. 1 as a member of that class. Therefore, in order to maintain the prosecution for defamation as a member of the class that is the 'district lawyers' he must satisfy the Court that the imputation is against him personally and that he is the person aimed at."
6. The next judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate of the petitioners is (G. Narasimhan v. T. V. Chokkappa). From a reading of the said judgment, it appears that certain statements, alleged to be defamatory, were published in some dailies in respect of certain resolution passed in a conference organised by the Dravida Kazhagram party. One Chokkappa, an active member of the party, filed a complaint for defamation against the editor and publishers of those dailies. The proceeding was challenged in Madras High Court and being unsuccessful an appeal was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In allowing the appeals, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a defamatory imputation against a collection of persons undoubtedly falls within Explanation 2 of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. But when that explanation speaks of a collection of persons as capable of being defamed, such collection of persons must be a definite and determinate body so that the imputation in question can be said to relate to its individual members or components. The complainant being the Chairman of the Reception Committee of the conference could not therefore be said to be the person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In such circumstances/appeals were allowed and the proceedings before the Magistrate were quashed.
7. In the next judgment reported in 1977 Cri LJ 21 (Asha Parekh v. State), it was held by the learned single Judge of Patna High Court that Advocates as a class are incapable of being defamed. If any publication can be shown to refer specifically to particular individual, then alone an action for defamation may lie, not otherwise. It was held that the portrayal of the lawyers in the film "Nadan" does not have any relevance to lawyers as a class. The dialogues and visible representations point out only to advocates who indulge in such practices and the impugned portions of the film cannot lead any reasonable person to form an opinion that Advocates are pests and despicable bunch.
8. In the case of Smt. Aruna Asaf Ali, 1984 Cri LJ 1121 (Gauhati) relied upon by the learned Advocate of the petitioner, a complaint was filed by the complainant regarding two articles published in the annual number of "Link News Magazine" under the captions "Improving the Body Politic" and "case of an Enchained Eagle" respectively. The case of the complainant was that he was one of the agaitationists and the impugned articles were published for defaming and lowering the Assam agitationists in the eyes and estimation of the World Public. It was held by the learned single Judge of Gauhati High Court that the group of body of persons indicated by the term "agitationists" does not connote a definite or identifiable body, It was therefore! held that the complainant was not an aggrieved person with regard to the publications made in the articles.
9. The learned counsel for the opposite party placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court (Sahib Singh Mehra v. State of U.P.). From a reading of the said judgment, it appears that the appellant published an article in his paper "Kaliyug" of Aligarh making imputations against the integrity of the Public Prosecutor and Assistant Public Prosecutors. The complaint under Section 500, I.P.C. was filed by the Public Prosecutor and IInd Assistant Public Prosecutors of Aligarh. In an appeal by the accused, it was held by the Supreme Court that the impugned remarks could certainly lead the readers of the article to believe that prosecuting staff was corrupt in discharge of its duties and were thus bound to affect the reputation of the prosecuting staff of Aligarh, who is certainly an identifiable group or collection of persons as contemplated in Explanation 2 of Section 499, I.P.C.
10. I have gone through the judgment referred to above, which was also taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Narasimhan v. T. V. Chokkappa, (supra). The facts and circumstances in which the case of Sahib Singh Mehra was decided, are quite different from the present case and is clearly distinguishable as it was done by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G. Narasimhan. In an action for defamation by the Public Prosecutor and IInd Assistant Public Prosecutors of Aligarh the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that such action was maintainable inasmuch as the prosecuting staff of Aligarh and even of the State of U. P. formed an identifiable group or collection of persons within the meaning of Section 499, Explanation (2) of the Indian Penal Code and one could with certainly say that a group of persons (namely Public Prosecutor and IInd Assistant Public Prosecutors) had been defamed as distinguished from the rest of the community and as such the complaint was maintainable. But the facts and circumstances of the present case are quite different as they have already been discussed above.
11. I have heard the learned Advocates of the respective parties. I have also perused the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as also of other High Courts. I find sufficient merit in the submission made by the learned Advocate of the petitioners. The words or imputations complained of must relate to some particular person or persons whose identity can be established. If such statement does not show any imputation aimed at any particular individual or individuals, but equally apply to others although belonging to the same class, it will not amount to defamation.
12. In the present case, there is no allegation that the imputation is against the complainant or that he is the person aimed at and that being the position he cannot be said to be the person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is alleged in the petition of complaint that the alleged defamatory imputations have been made against the lawyers of the country as a class, which cannot constitute an association or collection of persons who can be defamed by the operation of Explanation (2) of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
13. In view of the discussion made above, I am of the view that the impugned proceeding as aforesaid, if allowed to continue, would be an abuse of the process of the Court and the same should be quashed. The revisional application is accordingly allowed and the proceeding being case No. C-241/ 2003 pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta is hereby quashed.