Bangalore District Court
Ms Bmm Ispat Limited vs Katagi Jambaiah Naik on 17 September, 2024
KABC030598002015
Presented on : 03-09-2015
Registered on : 03-09-2015
Decided on : 17-09-2024
Duration : 9 years, 0 months, 14 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 17th Day of September, 2024
C. C. No. 21543/2015
M/s BMM Ispat Ltd.,
A Company registered under
the provisions of the Companies
Act, 1956 with its corporate officer
at No.101, 1st Floor, "Pride Elite",
No.10, Museum Road,
Bengaluru-560001.
Rep. by its General Manager(PR)
and Authorized Signatory
Mr.Silas Nerella
(Represented by
Sri Ajay J Nandalike) ... Complainant
KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015
Versus
1. Sri Ktagi Jambaiah Naik
Aged about 37 years,
S/o Hanumanthappa,
Occupatioin President,
Jaya Karnataka Sangha and
Vijayanagara Rakhana Vedike,
33rd Ward, Talawarkeri,
Hospet, Bellary.
2. Sri D.K.Manjunatha
Aged about 45 years,
S/o Sri Kadli Dyamappa,
R/o Danapura Village,
Mariyamannahalli Hobli,
Hospet Taluk, Bellary District.
3. Sri Dadapeer
Aged about 30 years,
S/o Sri Gafur Sab,
R/o Mariyammanahalli Village,
and Hobli, Hospet Taluk, Bellary District.
4. Smt. Munnabi (abated)
Aged about 35 years,
w/o Sri Mabu Sab,
R/o Danapura Village,
Marriyammana Hobli,
Hospet Taluk, Bellary District.
(Represented By Advocate Sri S.K. Marad) ... Accused
2
KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015
1. Date of commission of 27-11-2013
offence
2. Name of Complainant Sri Silas Nerella
3. Offences complained Under Section 499, 500
of of IPC
4. Charge Pleaded not guilty
5. Final Order Accused No.1 to 3 are
convicted
6. Date of order 17-09-2024
JUDGMENT
The complainant M/S BMM Ispat Ltd., represented by Sri Silas Nerella, filed a private complaint against accused No.1 to 4 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sec.499 and 500 of IPC on 19-08-2014
2. By contending that i. The complainant is a public limited company registered with the Registrar of Companies, Bengaluru, under the provision of the companies Act5, 1956 and the company is engaged in the 3 KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015 business of manufacture of steel, cement and power in the State of Karnataka.
ii. Further, pursuant to its business objectives, the complainant has acquired large extent of lands in Danapura Village through the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB), in order to establish an integrated steel plant, power plant, cement plant and a township. Heavy rains led to accumulation of rain water in a portion of the said lands which was fenced with warning boards that have been allotted to the Complainant by the KIADB. On 5th October 2011, two children viz., Fahim s/o Mr.Dadapeer accused No.3 and Imam Khasim s/o Smt. Munnabi accused No.4 ventured into the said water for swimming and drowned in water, resulting in their death.
iii. On the accounts of the said incident, a compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- was paid as ex-gratia and the accused No.3 and 4 were given employment in the complainant company.
iv. Further, accused No.1 and 2, apparently at the behest of accused No.3 and 4, approached the complainant's officers at site and also at its Bengaluru office and demanded for huge sum of 4 KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015 Rs.50,00,000/- as a payoff for not prosecuting the complainant.
v. When the complainant refused the pay the money, accused No.1 filed private complaint bearing PCR No.7/2012 before JMFC, Hospet, for the offences punishable u/Sec.290, 304(A) of IPC and after investigation, the jurisdictional police filed "B" final report.
vi. The said report came to be challenged by way of protest petition and the learned JMFC, Hospet, took too cognizance and issued summons in the said proceedings. On 27-11-2013 at around 5.15 pm the complainant came to know that he was being telecasted on the Kannada News channel 'TV9' with the title 'Yamaduta BMM' (TV Program). The accused No.1 to 4 was interviewed in the TV program and have made several false statements and have deliberately defamed the complainant and made imputations against the complainant.
v. In the said program, the accused No.1 deliberately made the following defamatory statements against the complainant.
a. the complainant has allegedly threatened the accused No.1 and 4 to not go to the court and give evidence, that the complainant has allegedly issued baseless show-cause notices to the accused No.3 with an intention to 5 KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015 harass him, that the reply to the said notice has not been received, that the complainant is allegedly involving illegal mining of murrum from a pit that was allegedly opened in 20 acres of government land and the ore extracted therein has been used for construction of a rod (National Highway) that the accused No.1 is allegedly the Honorary President of Vijayanagara Rakshana Vedike and that he has seen the bodies of children kept on the shore and that there was no fencing, watchman and not even a retaining wall.
b. A Bolero vehicle bearing No.KA- 25-B-3483 belongs to the complainant and that the officers of the Taluk Office have taken this vehicle to attend a meeting at D.C.'s office. The accused No.1 is fully aware that the said vehicle did not belong to the complainant.
vi. In the said program, the accused No.3 deliberately made the following defamatory statements against the complainant that 6 KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015 "the complainant allegedly represented that a college would be constructed and thereafter, it was told that a small factory would be constructed, which would provide employment to the local population. The complainant ha not employed any locals, he also concedes that the complainant has employed certain local leaders on contract basis. Further alleged that the entire district administration starting from the Deputy Commissioner to the Peon have been bribed by the complainant. and "the complainant's officers are allegedly threatening him to not to go to court and that he would have been removed from service should he attend the court".
v. In the said program, the accused No.4 deliberately made the following defamatory statements against the complainant.
vi. The complainant and its officers offered to provide job and later they refused to give job and abused them.
vii. The said statements have been made solely with an intention to tarnish the reputation of the complainant and its officers. The accused No.1 is very 7 KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015 well aware that the company has to approach the government departments for various permission in connection with regard to operations. Being aware of the said fact, the accused No.1 has deliberately concocted a story by building a nefarious nexus between the complainant and the Government departments. The complainant company has approached KIADB for acquisition of land to set up a steel industry, not to set up college as alleged. The allegation of the accused that the complainant had purchased the lands of the farmers at a lower rate by assuring employment is false. In view of the TV program containing the said imputations, the complainant has received several enquiries and call from their business contacts, banks about the complainant's involvement in alleged criminal activities. The same has caused the complainant and its officers tremendous embarrassment and pain and are terrible shaken and distressed. Thereby the accused No.l1 to 4 committed the offences punishable under Sec.499 and 500 of IPC.
3. On receipt of complaint, this court has registered the complaint as PCR and recorded the sworn statement of complainant and took cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Sec.500 IPC.
8KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015
4. This court has issued summons to accused No. 1 to 4.
5. On receipt of summons, the accused No.1 to 4appeared before the court through their counsel and obtained bail on 31-12-2016.
6. The case against accused No.4 abated by the order dated 28-04-2018 as she reported to be dead.
7. On receipt of summons, the accused No.1 to 3appeared before the said court. After hearing the learned counsels for complainant and accused, Substance of accusation by way of Plea for the offence punishable U/Sec.499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code has been read over and explained to the accused, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. The complainant examined Sri. Silas Narella as PW1 and exhibited 5 documents and closed their side. The counsel for accused cross examined the complainant and marked documents as per Ex.D1 to D3.
9. After completion of evidence of complainant side, the accused No.1 to 3 were examined as per 9 KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015 section 313 statement of Cr.P.C wherein they denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of PW1 and in filed written statement along with the documents.
10. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
11. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the complainant proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 27-11-2013 accused No.1 to 3 with abated accused No.4 gave programme in TV9 at Bengaluru by making defamatory statements against the complainant's company knowing fully well that it is going to cause harm to the reputation of the complainant company thereby resulted in commission of the offences punishable under Section 499, 500 of IPC?
10KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015
2. What order?
12. The Court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : As per final order REASONS
13. Point No.1: It is admitted by the accused No. 1 to 4 that they had given the programme in TV9 at Bengaluru under the caption of 'Yamaduta BMM' but the same falls under exception category and hence they are not defamatory against the complainant company. In this context it is relevant to reiterate Section 499 of Indian Penal Code defines Defamation.
Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.
11KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015 Explanation 1.--It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the fellings of his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2.--It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3.--An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4.--No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in 12 KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015 a lothsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.
Illustrations
(a) A says-- "Z is an honest man; he never stole B's watch";
intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions.
(b) A is asked who stole B's watch. A points to Z, intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions.
(c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B's watch, intending it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions.c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B's watch, intending it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions.
First Exception.--Imputation of truth which public good 13 KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015 requires to be made or published.--It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.
Second Exception.--Public conduct of public servants.--It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Third Exception.--Conduct of any person touching any public question.--It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
14KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015 It is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever resepting Z's conduct in petitioning Government on a public question, in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public question, in presiding or attending at such meeting, in forming or joining any society which invites the public support, in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate for any situation in the efficient discharge of the duties of which the public is interested.
Fourth Exception.--Publication of reports of proceedings of courts.--It is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings.
Explanation.--A Justice of the Peace or other officer holding an enquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of the above section.
15KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015 Fifth Exception.--Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned.--It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Sixth Exception.--Merits of public performance.--It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further.
Explanation.--A performance may be submitted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on 16 KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015 the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public.
Seventh Exception.--Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another.--It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates.
Eighth Exception.--Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person.--It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.
Ninth Exception.--Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests.--It is not defamation to make an imputation on the 17 KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015 character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.
Tenth Exception.--Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good.--It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.
Thus, to bring an offence under Section 500 of IPC, prosecution has to show, (a) that an imputation was made consisting of words spoken or written or intended to be read or made by signs or by visible representations; (b) that the imputation concerned the complainant i.e., the person defamed and the person who has come forward qua complainant alleging that defamation concerned him, are identical persons; (c) that the accused made or published the incriminating imputation; and, (d) that 18 KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015 the intention behind making and publishing words causing harm to the reputation of such person.
14. The offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC, therefore, is to protect a fundamental right of a person i.e. 'reputation' which is part of right to enjoyment of life and liberty and property having an ancient origin as explained by Supreme Court in Smt. Kiran Bedi Vs Committee of Enquiry and another reported in 1989 (1) SCC 494 wherein it was observed as under:-
"The right to enjoyment of a private reputation, unassailed by malicious slander is of ancient origin, and is necessary to human society. A good reputation is an element of personal security, and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property. "
In the case of Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs DilipKumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and others reported in (1983) 1 SCC 124 wherein it was held that "right to reputation" is a facet of right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of Constitution.
19KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015
15. In the case of Vishwanath S/o Sitaram Agrawal Vs Sau Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal reported in 2012 (6) SCALE 190 wherein it was held that "........reputation which is not only the salt of life, but also the purest treasure and the most precious perfume of life. It is extremely delicate and a cherished value this side of the grave. It is a revenue generator for the present as well as for the posterity. "
(emphasis added)
16. In the case of Kishore Samrite Vs State of Up and others reported in 2013 (2) SCC 398 wherein it was held that "The term 'person' includes not only the physical body and members but also every bodily sense and personal attribute among which is the reputation a man has acquired. Reputation can also be defined to be good name, the credit, honour or character which is derived from a favourable public opinion or esteem, and character by report. The right to enjoyment of a good reputation is a valuable privilege 20 KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015 of ancient origin and necessary to human society. 'Reputation' is an element of personal security and is protected by Constitution equally with the right to enjoyment of life, liberty and property. Although 'character' and 'reputation' are often used synonymously, but these terms are distinguishable. 'Character' is what a man is and 'reputation' is what he is supposed to be in what people say he is. 'Character' depends on attributes possessed and 'reputation' on attributes which others believe one to possess. The former signifies reality and the latter merely what is accepted to be reality at present. "
17. Offence under Section 500 of IPC, therefore, covers a very important aspect involving a person's right to life and liberty, hence when a complaint is made that a person's reputation has been jeopardized and the court should entertain the said complaint subject to providing an opportunity whether the persons making such imputations falls within exception categories.
21KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015 18. According to the defence that accused No. 1 made imputing statement before the TV Channel based upon letter dated 09/04/2012 as the public had made the statement. If the public have made the statement how could he spoke about the same in the channel when he does not know the about the truthiness. He is not authorized to speak about the same without knowing the facts. Merely applying the information through Right to Information Act, would guarantee the accused No. 1 to make a statement about the murram quarrying. If the complainant has indulged in illegal murram quarrying, the concerned authority has taken action as the complainant paid the penalty. When the complainant paid the penalty on 03/06/2013, the question of bribing the officers does not arise. Hence the imputation statement made by accused No. 1 amounts to defamation about murram quarrying. There is no itoa of evidence available for having paid the bribe by the complainant to the Department of Mines and geology. Mere filing of complaint with the Lokayukta dated 21/07/2014 does not mean that they have proved that the complainant has bribed the officials of Department of Mines and Geology for murram quarrying.
19. The officials of the officials of the Department of Mines and Geology were using the vehicle of the complainant company vide Bolero KA NO. 24 P 3433 but no iota of evidence as such 22 KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015 photographs/videograph has been placed to corroborate of such statement of accused No. 1. The written arguments filed by the accused No. 1 claims to fall on ninth exception that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good. Without any proof of bribing the government officials, how the accused No.1 could have made such imputations and the accused No. 1 should prove that the imputations was within his knowledge and information was true and then only he could make such imputation and no such evidence was produced by the accused No. 1 that the imputation was made for public good and to make public officials to discharge their duty cannot be accepted.
20. The defence of the accused No. 2 was that he made the imputation pertaining to the conduct of public servant however the entire video (interview) and written transcription depicts that the complainant Company had bribed the entire District Administration from Deputy commissioner to the peon and such being the case, he made imputation to save his land and falls under the exception II cannot be accepted.
23KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015
21. The defence of the accused No. 3 that the imputation made by him falls within the exception IX. If the complainant company and his representative has threatened the accused No. 3 if he takes legal action against the company, he would be killed for his son's death in the land of complainant company. If such threat was taken place from the complainant company, he could have resorted to legal remedies however no such recourse has been made and such being the case, that the imputation made by him falls within the exception IX does not stand.
22. Since the case against accused No. 4 abated and hence declines to discuss about the imputation made by her under the caption of Yamdootha BMM.
23. The caption Yamdootha BMM was not made by the accused persons and the complainant in his cross examination also admitted that the he does remember the accused persons have stated the word "Yamadootha BMM" in TV9 however accused has not denied the words and imputation used by them in the said interview.
24. The accused persons admitted that they have taken part in the TV9 program and the same 24 KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015 was telecast-ed and it was heard by the public. More so the accused persons admitted in taking part in the TV9 program and had given such imputation statement and hence the question of proving the CD Ex. P.1 was not accompanied with the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act does not arise. The evidence is required only to prove the disputed facts and not for admitted facts and hence the defence of accused persons that the CD was not accompanied by affidavit does not hold any substance.
25. The defence was that the complainant has not produced the independent witnesses and evidence in order to prove that the alleged imputation directly or indirectly lower the moral or intellectual character of the complainant in the estimation of the others but the complaint however the complainant company is not seeking for any civil damages/compensation to prove the same. The burden is upon the accused persons to rebut the same with cogent evidence that the imputation made by them falls within the exception and the said principle is appreciated in the case of Jeffrey J.Diermeier & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Anr reported in 2010 AIR SCW 3493.
25KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015
26. The accused persons fails to enter into the witness box to produce the cogent documents and explain this court under what circumstances these imputations were made in their evidence as per Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act. It is well settled law that the complainant has to prove that accused has made the imputation and the same has been proved as per Ex. P. 1 but such imputation falls within exception of Section 499 of IPC has to be proved with the cogent evidence by the accused persons however in the case on hand, the accused No. 1 to 3 fails to prove the same.
27. The complainant has not filed any case against the TV9 producer or publisher and even against the reporter or anchor however it appears from the record that complainant company sent a notice to delete the said video from their portal. Such being the case when the imputation was made by the accused persons, making the TV9 producer or publisher and even against the reporter or anchor as a party or filing of a case against them does not hold any water.
28. Therefore, this court have no hesitation to hold that the complainant has proved that the accused have committed the offence punishable 26 KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015 under Sec.500 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt. In the result, this court answers the above point No.1 in the affirmative.
29. Point No.2:- For the foregoing discussion and the findings to the above point No.1, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.255(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 to 3 are found guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section.500 of IPC.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17th day of September, 2024) (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
27KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Silas Narella Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Extract of Minutes of the Meeting Ex.P2 : Certificate Under Section 25B of the Evidence Act and CD Ex.P3 : Transcription of the news report named Yamaduta BMM Ex.P4 : Letter dated 2-4-2014 Ex.P5 : Authorization letter Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution: NIL Witnesses examined for the defence: Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
Ex.D1 : Photo
Ex.D2 : ಎರಡು ರಾಜಿ ಒಪ್ಪಂದ ಕರಾರು ಪತ್ರಗಳು
& D3 :
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
28
KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015
ORDER ON SENTENCE OR FINE
The Learned Counsel for accused No.1 to 3
argued that the accused No.1 to 3 are rustic villages and they do not have any intention to commit the alleged offence and further argued that the lenient view be taken by considering the fine amount as the Section 500 of IPC provides for punishment upto 2 years or fine or with both. Considering the submission of counsel and the address provided in the cause title reflect that they are from Hospet Taluk, Bellary District. Hence accused No.1 to 3 shall pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each. Bail bond stands cancelled against the accused No.1 to 3 and ordered accordingly.
Office to collect the fine amount accordingly.
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.29
KABC030598002015 CC No.21543/2015 17-9-2024 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.255(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 to 3 are found guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section.500 of IPC.
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
30