Bangalore District Court
Mahesh Joshi Ib(P)S vs ) N.Dilip Kumar on 5 November, 2016
IN THE COURT OF IX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H.5)
Dated: This the 5th day of November 2016
Present: Shri Krishnamurthy B.Sangannanavar,
B.Com.LL.B.,(Special)
IX Addl. C.C & S.J, Bangalore.
O.S. NO.1400/2003
Plaintiff: Mahesh Joshi IB(P)S, S/o.Late
H.G. Joshi, Aged about 45 years,
presently working as Station
Director, Doordarshan Kendra,
Gulbarga - 585 104.
Present address: No.22, Upstairs,
Shop Street, Basavanagudi,
Bangalore 560 004.
[By Sri.C.V.Sudhindra, Advocate]
-Vs-
Defendants: 1) N.Dilip Kumar, S/o. N.K.
Bhushanam, Aged about 47 years,
DIG, CBI Regional Office, 3rd Floor,
Block 'A', Sultan Bazar, Kendriya
Sadan, Hyderabad - 500 0195.
2) B.Paneerselvam, S/o. G. Bala
Selvam, Aged about 46 years,
Inspector of Police, CBI, No.
1794/1, MR 4 Road, New Adarsh
Colony, Jabalpur - 482 002.
Madhya Pradesh.
2 O.S.No.1400/2003
3) Central Bureau of Investigation,
Represented by its Director, CGO
Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
110 003.
(By Sri.SCM/NM, advocate)
Date of institution of the suit 22.02.2003
Nature of the suit Recovery of Money
Date of commencement of 26.9.2008
recording the evidence
Date on which the judgment 05.11.2016
was pronounced
Total duration : Days Month/s Year/s
13 08 13
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by plaintiff claiming Rs.2,50,000/- from defendants towards general and special damages with cost and interest from the date of suit till realization.
2. On facts, case of the plaintiff is pleaded below:
He is a Senior Officer borne on Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, 3 O.S.No.1400/2003 Government of India. He is currently serving as Station Director and Head of Office at Doordarshan Kendra, Gulbarga. Basically, he was an Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central) in the Ministry of Labour, Government of India. He served as officer on Special Duty to the Hon'ble Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council and served as Press Secretary/Personal Secretary on deputation as Officer on special duty to the then Union Textile Minister, Government of India. He served and is serving the public offices in various capacities without any blemish and maintains meritorious and outstanding records. The 1st defendant, as on the date of the suit, working as Deputy Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad and he was working as Superintendent of Police, CBI, Bangalore at the relevant period. While 2nd defendant present working as Inspector of Police, CBI, Jabalpur and he was working at the relevant time as Inspector of Police, CBI, Bangalore. He is a trusted friend working as subordinate of defendant No.1. The plaintiff was working as Station Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Panaji, Goa during 1995 to 1997. The 1st defendant was working as Superintendent of Police at Panaji and he is known 4 O.S.No.1400/2003 to each other. He was in regular contact with plaintiff, had cordial relationship. The 1st defendant was in the habit of coming and crying on the shoulders of plaintiff with regard to his official and service problems with Government of Goa. The plaintiff, being in the capacity of Station Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Panaji, was instrumental in taking the initiative to organize a "Face to Face", a public grievance redressal programme. The defendant No.1 requested plaintiff to use of his proximity with people in Government of Goa to get his service matters solved and he urged plaintiff to use the platform "Face to Face" programme to put the Chief Minister of Goa into an unreal position with his service related questions. The question being on service matters of defendant No.1, the Chief Minister of Goa did not agree to include in the "Face to Face" programme. The plaintiff, after stint at Goa, posted as Private Secretary to Mr.D.B. Kalmankar, Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council, Bangalore, on deputation. At that time, 1st defendant was posted as Superintendent of Police at CBI, Madras and later, at Bangalore. 1st defendant was in regular touch with plaintiff. The 1st defendant requested plaintiff to seek some 5 O.S.No.1400/2003 favour on his behalf from the Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council, Bangalore and he wanted his name to be recommended for Presidential medal. He wanted an order to be placed for the purchase of the book on "Goa Police"
authored by him. He requested plaintiff to seek yet another favour in securing a seat for his daughter in a prestigious educational institution either at Bangalore or Mysore. As the plaintiff felt uncomfortable the manner in which defendant No.1 sought to exploit friendship. Yet, he introduced defendant No.1 - Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council and requested him to do the needful in the matter, but for the reasons best known to Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council, did not consider the request of defendant No.1. The plaintiff forgot the same, but defendant No.1 did not. The 1st defendant started nurturing ill-will towards plaintiff as defendant No.1 felt that plaintiff wantonly and deliberately did not help defendant No.1 either in Goa or in Bangalore. On 31.7.1998, plaintiff was posted as Executive Producer, Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore. He was posted to Sponsored Section on 18.1.1999. When he took charge of Sponsered Section, a particular 6 O.S.No.1400/2003 teleserial "Lux Top 10" was on air. Since it was a film based serial, placed on Super 'A' category, by then 13 episodes were already completed. The plaintiff had no role to play either in the offer, approval, acceptance or telecast of the serial.
A case was registered against plaintiff as Accused No.4 in RC No.10(A)/2000 on the suo moto complaint of defendant No.2. It is stated by defendant that plaintiff conspired in the "approval and telecast of Lux Top 10" and further by not collecting the required revenue, has caused loss to the State. An allegation was also made that the plaintiff amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income. The defendants succeeded in securing the orders for issue of search warrants from Learned Judge of the Special Court on 15.5.2000. Knowing fully well that documents were not available with the plaintiff and his brother Mr.Gurunath Joshi, they succeeded to raid the house of plaintiff, in utter disregard to the rules and regulations governing the search and seizure. The raid was carried out in the absence of plaintiff and when his wife was all alone in the house. They also carried out the search in the house of his brother Mr.Gurunath Joshi, an 7 O.S.No.1400/2003 Executive in Canara Bank which was contrary to the relevant rules and regulations. The defendants have submitted report to Special Judge to pass orders permitting them to conduct raid. They made use to demoralize plaintiff giving very wide publicity in all leading newspapers. They have fabricated a case against plaintiff with the assistance of disgruntled elements of Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore.
The 1st defendant prevailed upon plaintiff to help his friends Smt.Chitra Shenoy and her husband Mr.Gurudas Shenoy by clearing/ approving their teleserial "Sadhana" which the plaintiff refused, as there was neither any application nor any documents such as script etc., The defendants thought that the plaintiff has wantonly not favoured defendant No.1 and his friends. At the instance of defendants, Smt. & Sri. Shenoy gave a complaint to CBI, Bangalore alleging that their proposal "Sadhana" was not processed. Since the defendants were in the helm of the affairs of CBI, they forwarded complaint to the Director, Doordarshan, who in turn passed on to Sri.A.Dasa, Deputy Director, Doordarshan, who was inimical to the plaintiff. Mr.A.Dasa who is junior to plaintiff 8 O.S.No.1400/2003 shot out a letter to plaintiff claiming himself as an investigating officer and called for his explanation. The defendants 1 and 2 knew the developments in Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore, deliberately and dishonestly cultivated friendship with disgruntling employees of Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore. Defendant No.1 is a sadist, vindictive, steeped with jealousy and hatred, was vengeful against plaintiff. He is known for his misadventures albeit deliberate ones. He was held guilty for contempt of Court and tendered apology to the High Court of Karnataka. The defendants 1 and 2 entered into a criminal conspiracy with Mr.N.K.Mohan Ram, S.B. Bhajanthri and Mr.A.Dasa, who secured all the papers relating to "Lux Top 10" from Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore and passed on them to defendants. The defendants 1 and 2 have determined to falsely implicate plaintiff were unmindful of the consequences or the end result. They knew that it takes several years to get a final word from Courts. They also knew that false implication would demoralize plaintiff and his family, the members of his family unable to bear disgrace, degrade and disrepute of this magnitude. The defendants 1 and 2 drafted the complaint so 9 O.S.No.1400/2003 as to implicate plaintiff as an accused. They carried out search and seizure by furnishing false particulars. They deliberately concealed material documents like order of Director General to Doordarshan dated 9.11.1998 and Fax dated 1.9.1998, when plaintiff produced along with affidavit filed on 16.8.2001, the defendants 1 and 2 maliciously and dishonestly asserted in their status report submitted by High Court on 24.8.2001 that they are forged and fabricated documents. In fact, these documents were genuine and official and came into existence few years before registration of the case, even to the knowledge of the defendants. At the time of approval of the serial "Lux Top 10", plaintiff was not at all there in the concerned Department and at the time he was posted there, the serial had already completed its 13 episodes. The plaintiff had nothing to do with the serial. Hon'ble High Court held that there is "not even faintest prima facie case made out". The defendants 1 and 2 took personal interest, submitted false report to prefer Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the said SLP came to be dismissed. The defendants 1 and 2 in conspiracy 10 O.S.No.1400/2003 with disgruntled officials of Doordarshan to frame the plaintiff by creating, fabricating, forging antedated documents, filed false case with maliciously and dishonestly built up a case. The imputation made in the status report dated 4.7.2001 are per-se defamatory. They falsely attributed these imputations knowing the contrary to the true, only to defame, disgrace and disrepute the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not caused loss to the State nor to the Department and defendants 1 and 2 by his false implication on created and forged documents, destroyed the reputation and his character. His four Bank accounts were freezed for nearly a year. His salary was continued to be remitted to the Bank account which was freezed, resulting thereby he was not in a position to withdraw his salary, they detained the documents. They omitted to reply the telegram thereby, defendant No.2 confirmed the involvement of defendant No.1.
Smt.Roopa, Dealing Assistant has drawn attention of plaintiff to a particular fact and defendants alone knew that it was not possible for a Dealing Assistant to put a 'note' directly to the plaintiff who is a Senior Class-I officer. The official 11 O.S.No.1400/2003 note dated 17.2.1999 is the brain child of defendants who fabricated to produce the same as genuine to frame the plaintiff in a false case. The defendants 1 and 2 have fraudulently, dishonestly and maliciously prosecuted plaintiff without their reasonable or probable cause. The actual damage though beyond Rs.1.00 crore, having regard to the standing, calling and reputation of plaintiff being an honest officer unable to pay the huge court fee, restrict the damages to a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards special and general damages. 3rd defendant is vicariously liable to pay damages to the plaintiff for the acts of defendants 1 and 2 who are its agents. 3rd defendant is responsible for the acts of omissions and commissions of its officials working under him as Superintendent of Police and Inspector of Police at the relevant time. The notice caused u/s.80 of C.P.C. on defendants 1 and 2 which will be a notice to defendant No.3, not only that it is a constructive notice but also that the same were placed before defendant No.3.
The plaintiff has incurred a sum of Rs.50,000/- to defend himself against the
prosecution initiated by defendants by securing anticipatory bail, applying for regular bail, return 12 O.S.No.1400/2003 of documents and filing of criminal petition etc., He has incurred Rs.20,000/- towards travelling expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards miscellaneous expenses to prosecute collateral proceedings arising out of the false case filed by defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff has quantified Rs.2,50,000/- towards entire damages both special and general damages which shall be payable by defendants 1 to
3 jointly and severally with cost and interest.
3. Defendants 1 to 3 put their appearance through their learned counsel and the 2nd defendant submitted written statement contending that case was registered in good faith and there was no motive, which could be attributed to the defendants in the registration of the said case. There is no cause of action against defendants. Searches were conducted in 14 places including the residence of five officials of Doordarshan at Pondicherry, Hyderabad, Bangalore and Vellore after obtaining search warrants from competent Court. The suit for damages against defendants is not maintainable in view of Doctrine of sovereign immunity and the suit is also barred by law of limitation. The acts committed by defendants were 13 O.S.No.1400/2003 in exercise of statutory functions delegated by Government. There is no vicarious liability as alleged by plaintiff. Government is immune from liability. Hence, claim for damages is not sustainable.
The search team seized from the residence of the plaintiff a letter regarding approval of the programme and also a demand draft submitted by certain procedures in favour of Doordarshan. The quashing of F.I.R. by Hon'ble High Court did not make any adverse observations or point out any malafides against defendants. The search team led by defendant No.2 was accompanied by lady officer Smt.W.Gladys Jayanthi and supervised by Mr.P.K.Jacob, Dy.S.P. They admit that defendant No.1 was serving as Superintendent of Police, CBI, Bangalore and defendant No.2 as Inspector at the relevant period under the command of defendant No.1 and at present, serving as Inspector of Police, CBI, Jabalpur. They admit that between 1995-96, defendant No.1 was also serving at the same place where plaintiff was serving. However, they deny that defendant No.1 requested plaintiff to include his service problems in the "Face to Face"
14 O.S.No.1400/2003programmer organized by plaintiff and denied his request made to plaintiff to seek certain favour from Mr.D.B.Kalmankar, the then Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council, where plaintiff was serving in the capacity of Private Secretary. The plaintiff has filed this suit only after quashing of F.I.R. and if allegations were true, would have filed suit after search of his house. Defendant No.1 denies insisted plaintiff to recommend his name for presidential Award and to seek help to get a seat in reputed educational institution for his daughter either at Bangalore or in Mysore. The defendant registered the case against five officers of Doordarshan including plaintiff and two private firms for the offences punishable u/s.120-B r/w. Sec.420 of IPC and u/s.13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. F.I.R. did not contain any allegation to the effect that plaintiff or other public servants amassed wealth disproportionate to their known source of income. They admit that at the time of conducting raid of the house of plaintiff, he was not available and his wife Smt.Malathi was available. The plaintiff had approached National Human Rights Commission falsely alleging that defendant No.2 led all male 15 O.S.No.1400/2003 members team and conducted search compelling his wife to take body search, although Smt.Gladys Jayanthi, Inspector and others supervised by Mr.P.K.Jacob, Dy.S.P. and other independent witnesses were present. This complaint was lodged subsequent to quashing of F.I.R. The alleged disgruntlement in Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore was not within the knowledge of the defendants. The defendants had no knowledge about steps taken by Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore on the complaint filed by Smt.Chitra Shenoy and her husband Mr.Gurudas Shenoy. The claim that plaintiff had sustained special and general damages amounting to Rs.1.00 crore and the claim that he has restricted his claim only to Rs.2,50,000/- is denied. The claim of the plaintiff that he has incurred Rs.50,000/- towards litigation charges, Rs.20,000/- towards traveling expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards miscellaneous expenses to prosecute collateral proceedings arising out of the false case booked by defendants is denied. The notice was sufficiently replied by defendants. The averments that defendant No.3 assured the plaintiff that he would take action against defendant No.1 and 2 is incorrect. The claim of the 16 O.S.No.1400/2003 plaintiff is untenable and the suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
4. In view of the above prime pleadings, this court formulated the following issues for the purpose of trial:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants have fraudulently, dishonestly and maliciously prosecuted him without there being any reasonable or probable cause?
(2) Whether plaintiff proves that he and his family members have been humiliated and disgraced in the estimation of his friends and relatives and other well known circles and as such, he has suffered damages?
(3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for damages from the defendants as claimed in the plaint?
(4) Whether plaintiff is entitled for interest on the amount claimed in the plaint?
(5) Whether suit is barred by
limitation?
17 O.S.No.1400/2003
(6) Whether suit against defendants is not maintainable in view of doctrine of sovereign immunity?
(7) What decree or order?
5. In support of the above issues, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and one witness as P.W.2 and through them, Exs.P-1 to P-61 documents got marked. On the contrary, defendants did not choose to adduce either oral or documentary evidence in support of his defence.
6. After closure of evidence on either side, having heard the learned counsels on record, this court would prefer to record the following findings on the above issues:
Issue Nos.1 & 2: In the Affirmative Issue No.3: In the affirmative, in so far as defendants 1 and 2.
Issue No.4: The plaintiff is entitled for
interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. from the date of suit
till realization from
defendants 1 and 2 by
invoke of Sec.34 of C.P.C.
Issue Nos.5 & 6: In the Negative
Issue No.7: As per final order,
for the following:
18 O.S.No.1400/2003
REASONS
7. Issue No.5: It would be more appropriate to decide this issue before other issues could be decides, since it goes to the root of the suit being issue on limitation. This is a suit filed by plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,50,000/- from defendants jointly and severally towards general and special damages. The cause of action for such suit, initially arose on 12.5.2000, when defendants fabricated false report and filed it as F.I.R. and on subsequent dates, when they effected search and seizures, other acts of investigation and prosecution. On 24.8.2001, when the Hon'ble High Court quashed the proceedings as against plaintiff that there was no faintest prima facie case against plaintiff and when SLP No.328/2002 came to be dismissed on 1st February 2002 and when the plaintiff was granted certified copy of the same on 26.2.2002 and when Criminal Appeal No.904/02 came to be disposed on 20.9.2002. This suit is filed on 22.2.2003. According to defendants, suit filed by plaintiff is not in time is liable to be dismissed as barred by law of limitation.19 O.S.No.1400/2003
8. Learned counsel for defendants to find support of his contentions has placed a reliance reported in AIR 2002 Kerala 219 in Eliamma Simon and another vs. Seven Seas Transportation Ltd., and others wherein it was held in para-12, "Now coming to the application of Article 72 of the Limitation Act we notice that the period of limitation to file a suit for compensation is one year from the date of the Act or the omission. In this case the act or omission which gave rise to the claim for compensation and referred to in Art.72 of the Limitation Act occurred on 25.5.1974 and the plaintiffs got knowledge of it on 22.6.1974. The suit was filed on 25.11.1982 that is, after the lapse of more than 8 years.
Undoubtedly, the time available under Article 72 of the Limitation Act had already run out."
Thus, from the above ratio of the decision he would submit that suit for compensation filed by the plaintiff could not be saved by time. He would submit that, time limitation to file such suit would be one year under Article 78 of the Limitation Act, 20 O.S.No.1400/2003 1963, and Art.75 of the Act does not apply to the facts of the suit.
9. Further to find support of such contention s has placed reliance reported in AIR 1992 Bombay 478 in Dr.Sharad Vaidya vs. Paulo Joel Vales and others wherein it was held, "Period of limitation to file suit based on such liability cannot be the period of limitation prescribed in the Limitation Act namely in its Art.72 or for that matter Art.79 of the schedule to the said Act. For the same reason the period of limitation prescribed in residuary provision of Art.113 of the said schedule seems also not to be relevant in the case."
Thus, relying on the two decisions, he would submit that suit could not be saved as filed after expiry of one year from the date of cause actions said to have been accrued to sue for compensation.
10. On the contrary to above such contentions, in reply, learned counsel for plaintiff placed a reliance reported in AIR 1974 Allahabad 21 O.S.No.1400/2003 129 in Abdul Majid vs. Harbansh Chaube and others wherein it was held in paragraph-8, "There is no merit in this submission. Article 2 of the Limitation Act deals with the suits for compensation for doing or for omitting to do an act alleged to be in pursuance of any enactment in force for the time being in India, whereas Article 23 dealt with the suit for compensation for a malicious prosecution. A claim in respect of compensation for malicious prosecution would fall under Article 23 which was the more specific Article and not under Article 2 which applied to cases where the defendant acted under colour of statute." Thus, from the above ratio laid in the decision, which would squarely applies to the facts of the case, contentions of defendants that suit filed by plaintiff on 22.2.2003, could not be saved by limitation is not correct. If we examine Ex.P-43 record of proceedings of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.328/2002 filed by defendants aggrieved by the order dated 24.8.2001 in CRLP No.937/2001 on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, on 22 O.S.No.1400/2003 1.2.2002, Special Leave Petition was called on for hearing by Hon'ble Mr. Justice U.C.Banerjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Y.K.Sabharwal. Upon hearing counsel, ordered they are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order Ex.P-42 dated 24.8.2001 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. As such, the special leave petition is ordered to be dismissed on 1.2.2002.
11. In view of dismissal of SLP on 1.3.2002, followed by the decision cited supra reported in AIR 1974 Allahabad 129, suit against police officer, seeking for award of compensation for a malicious prosecution, as it was held, suit falls under Article 23 and not under Article 2. Further it was held, Article 23 is more specific and governs such a case. Article 2 applies to cases where the defendant acts under colour of statute. It is therefore, on facts of the case on trial is between plaintiff and defendants could not be said not in time, followed by this decisions cited supra. It is therefore, contention of learned counsel for defendants that the suit filed by plaintiff could not be saved as on 22.2.2003 is incorrect and not accepted by the court. Thus, reaching to such 23 O.S.No.1400/2003 conclusion, finding on this issue would be record in the Negative.
12. Issue No.6: Learned counsel for defendants would submit that the suit of the plaintiff tantamount restraining Government Machinery from discharging their duties in normal/smooth course and such being the case, suit for damages against defendants is not maintainable in view of the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity. In this regard, learned counsel for plaintiff would submit that plaintiff claims special and general damages from defendants 1 and 2 on the ground that defendant No.1 with vindictive, steeply with jealous and hatred was vengeful against him as he was working as Superintendent of Police, Panaji, when plaintiff was working at the same place had acquaintance with him with malicious conspired to fabricate documents with disgruntled employees of Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore and the 2nd defendant under his command have made deliberately false, dishonest and malicious report contrary to law and in the process made per se defamatory statement lowering down his reputation in the eyes of friends, 24 O.S.No.1400/2003 relatives and society at large. Although Serial "Lux Top 10" was on air from 12.10.1998 and by the time he took over the charge of Sponsored section on 18.1.1999, 13 episodes were already telecasted and the Dealing Assistant was there in the sponsored section at that time also, did not put up a note to her higher ups for about six months and the defendants all along knew that it was not possible for a Dealing Assistant to put a 'note' directly to the plaintiff, who is a Senior Class-I officer. Yet, registered a false First Information Report, made false report thereon, implicated him in a false case on fabricated documents, obtained search warrants, conducted search of his house in his absence and house of his brother Mr.Gurunath Joshi, knowing fully well that there was no involvement of plaintiff in any of the offences alleged by defendants. It is therefore, defendants cannot take shelter under Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity for their misdeeds and to find support of such contentions, placed reliance reported in AIR 1973 SC 1960 in Smt.Nilabati Behere @ Lalita Behera vs. State of Orissa and others wherein it was held, 25 O.S.No.1400/2003 "Concept of Sovereign immunity is not applicable to case of violation of fundamental rights."
13. Further to find support of such contentions, he placed reliance reported in AIR 2015 M.P. 212 of Indoor Bench in Lawyers for Justice (Non-Government Organization) vs. State of M.P. and others wherein it was held, "Defence of sovereign immunity cannot be raised by State."
Further, it was held, "Remedy - Public law jurisdiction can be exercised for penalizing the wrong doer and fixing the liability for public wrong on State which failed in discharge of its public duty to protect fundamental rights of citizen - Compensation can be granted for said deprivation of fundamental right."
14. If we go through the above decision, Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held as such, followed by the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court 26 O.S.No.1400/2003 reported in AIR 1997 SC 610 and AIR 1993 SC 1960 which could be seen in paragraph-22 "Till about two decades ago the liability of the Government for tortuous acts of its public servants was generally limited and the person affected could enforce his right in tort by filing a civil suit and there again the defence of sovereign immunity was allowed to have its play. For the violation of the fundamental right to life or the basic human rights, however, Supreme Court has taken the view that the defence of sovereign immunity is not available to the State for the tortuous act of the public servants and for the established violation of the rights guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
15. Thus, this Court in consideration of the facts of the case as narrated from pleadings of the parties and keeping in mind, binding force, since plaintiff herein has claimed special and general damages against defendants for their wrong doing under the colour of sovereign functions and since plaintiff herein caused legal notices marked as per 27 O.S.No.1400/2003 Ex.P-40 dated 6.11.2002 on defendants 1 and 2 prior to institution of the suit. It is to be noted herein from the evidence of P.W.1 that the said notices were sent by RPAD. If we examine the contents of the notice could see about notifying the defendants 1 and 2 about their wrong doing to lower down his reputation and reputation of his family in the eyes of friends, relatives and society and further notifying that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as per Ex.P-42 on 24.8.2001 in Criminal Petition No.937/2001, order to quash the F.I.R. in RC No.10(A)/2000 registered as against plaintiff pending on the file of Special Judge to try CBI case at Bangalore and in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.328/2002 marked as per Ex.P-43 the Hon'ble Apex Court of India ordered to dismiss their petition on 01.02.2002. It was also notified that in view of dismissal of their SLP defendants 1 and 2 or defendants cannot take shelter of the sovereign immunity. Thus, the suit herein being filed for claim of damages for lowering down the reputation of the plaintiff for the facts which he has narrated in his plaint and supported by the decisions of the higher courts in the very case filed by the defendants, their contention that 28 O.S.No.1400/2003 plaintiff cannot maintain present suit against them on the basis of doctrine of sovereign immunity is incorrect. In other words to say could not be acceptable for simple reason that they have registered crime on false implication with some object for the reasons best known to the 1st defendant which could not be disclosed at all before the Court of law although being a party to the suit has failed to enter in to the witness box to explain as to how the crime came to be registered, investigated, taken even up to the highest Court of India. On the contrary, plaintiff has stated that the 1st defendant being police officer worked in Goa State, had acquaintance with him has done all the narrated false implication for the reasons stated in his plaint and evidence which has to be believable. Thus reaching to such conclusion, finding on this issue would be record in the Negative.
16. Issue Nos.1 to 4: In the present suit, plaintiff has to prove that defendants have fraudulently, dishonestly and maliciously prosecuted him without there being any reasonable or probable cause or case which was booked by them along with other accused persons against 29 O.S.No.1400/2003 whom charge sheet filed on the file of special Judge to try the CBI cases. Further to prove that by doing so, he and his family members have been humiliated and disgraced in the eye of his friends and relatives and other well known circle besides to prove sufferings as special and general damages. In support of these issues, he examined himself as P.W.1 and examined one of his friend Mr.S.S. Rajesh, knew him for the past two decades. Plaintiff has placed Ex.P-1 to P-61 documents to support his ocular evidence and to legally substantiate his case placed a reliance reported in AIR 1974 Allahabad 129 wherein it was held, "If proceedings are initiated from an indirect or wrong motive and not in furtherance of justice the defendant's action is malicious. There need not necessarily be a feeling of enemity, spite or ill-will. Absence of reasonable cause owning to the defendant's want of belief in the truth of his charge evidences malice. Thus when the plaintiff was prosecuted for an offence under Section 412, Penal Code, for being in possession of an article removed in a dacoity case, on the false charge sheet 30 O.S.No.1400/2003 submitted by the Station Officer who conspired with others and concocted the story, the wrong or indirect motive to prosecute is established."
17. Further, placed a decision of our own High Court reported in ILR 2004 KAR 3892 in Prof. S.N.Hegde and another vs. The Lokayuktha, Bangalore and others wherein it was held, in paragraph-76 on page 3951---, "Therefore, it is clear that the reputation of a man is a very precious thing, the man cherishes most in his life. It is a natural or absolute right of a man. In fact the whole exercise which a man undertakes in life is to acquire fame, name and reputation. No office which a man occupies in life is permanent. Therefore, between the removal of the man from that office and damage to his reputation what he is afraid of is damage to the reputation. Office does not last but reputation is permanent. In fact, the reputation outlives a man. Therefore, the wide interpretation placed by the Surpeme Court to the word 'life' in Article 21 of the 31 O.S.No.1400/2003 Constitution, leads to inevitable inference that Article 21 of the Constitution not only should be taken to mean protection of one's life and liberty while a person is alive, but equally covers the reputation of a person during his life and after. Any wrong action by the State or its agencies which sullies the reputation of a virtuous person would certainly come under the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, it can be said that the right to reputation is a part of right to life, a fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution and no person should be deprived of such right except according to the procedure established by law."
18. Further to be noted herein that that in a case between plaintiff and defendants in Criminal Petition No.937/2001, dated 24.8.2001, the High Court of Karnataka while quashing case registered against the plaintiff herein held, case of conspiracy u/s.120-B of IPC in the alleged sponsored programme is not made out. It is not in dispute that this decision is between Mr.Mahesh Joshi 32 O.S.No.1400/2003 IB(P) vs. State of Central Bureau of Investigation/ SPE, Bangalore and the Hon'ble High Court order to be report the said case and it is a reported decision and reported in ILR Karnataka, it is therefore it would be just and proper to make mention, what had held in this decision which of course, the plaintiff has produced as per Ex.P-42 certified copy of the order dated 24.8.2001 in Criminal Petition No. 937/2001. This decision would play a vital importance herein to decide whether the act or commission or omission of the defendants in naming the plaintiff also in the crime registered against the other accused persons who are the officers of the department of Information and Broadcasting, in particular officers of DDK attached to the Bangalore Doordarshan Kendra to consider the claim made by the plaintiff as special and general damages from defendants. It is therefore, this Court would like to extract few paragraphs from Ex.P-42 for reference herein to have clear understanding of facts of the case booked by the defendants and the findings recorded thereon by the High Court to quash the proceedings against the plaintiff.
33 O.S.No.1400/2003"The petitioner was working as Director of Doordarshan, Bangalore, during 18.1.1999 to 21.8.1999 in the Sponsored Section and also worked as the Executive Producer of the Doordarshan in a different section from 31.7.1998 to 22.12.1999. The work tenure of the petitioner between 18.1.1999 and 20.8.1999 and from 8.11.1999 to 21.12.1999 as the Director in the Sponsored Section has become the subject matter of the charge sheet alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 along with the offence of conspiracy punishable u/s.120(B) of the IPC. The C.B.I. has arrayed 7 accused persons. The petitioner is arrayed as accuse No.4 in the F.I.R."
In paragraph-3, "It is the contention of the prosecution that a Sponsored Programme Lux Top 10 for telecast on Doordarshan, Bangalore, was made from 12.10.1998 onwards and was an on going programme till the registration of the case against accused. The accused 34 O.S.No.1400/2003 No.1 P.S.Palani Swamy, the former Director of Doordarshan working in the Sponsered Section during the year 1998 and as Director during his period the illegal telecast of the programme was approved by accepting the rates contrary to the approved rates and thereby causing loss to the Doordarshan. Accuse-2 V.Appa Rao who succeeded Accused-1 and during his time, the telecast of disputed programme was continued at a low rates contrary to the scheduled telecast rates. The allegation against accused 2 to 4 are that after the telecast was permitted, they succeeded to the Office of Director, Doordarshan, Bangalore, despite knowledge that the rates charged for the telecast of the programme is contrary to the scheduled rates allowed the telecast of the programme without initiating appropriate action of cancelling the programme and intimating the authorities. Thereby it is alleged that they have tacitly colluded with the other accused and allowed the programme to be continued charging low rates causing loss 35 O.S.No.1400/2003 to the Doordarshan. Accused 5 and 6 are the Producer and the liaison Agency who got the contract approved through accused-
1."
In paragraph-4, "The C.B.I., Bangalore registered the case, conducted the investigation. The petitioner who is Accused-4 being aggrieved by registration of the case has filed the present petition for quashing of the proceedings against him to direct the discontinuation of further investigation in the matter against him as he is not guilty of any offence and there is no material warranting of a registration of a case and continuation of an investigation."
In paragraph-5, "The C.B.I. has contested the case. The Investigation Officer has filed objections to the documents filed by the petitioner and also filed objections to the material averments made by the petitioner. During the course of arguments, the petitioner has produced as many as five documents are 36 O.S.No.1400/2003 produced along with an affidavit dated 18.8.2001. It is the contention of the petitioner that the approval of the telecast of the programme was made during the tenure of accused No.1 and in the scheme of the functioning of the Dooradarshan, all contracts of telecast have to be processed and sent to Director General, Dooradarshan, Delhi and whatever the terms and conditions including the rates for the telecast and whatever the rates suggested and proposed by Accused-1 were in fact approved by the Director General of Doordarshan, Delhi. Therefore, that he had very little scope to object and discontinue the telecast of the programme. It is also submitted that by a letter produced at document No.8 that the approval of the rates proposed and charged were in fact approved by the Director of Doordarshan, Delhi and also with effect from 15.10.1998."
In para-6, "In para-4 of the reply to the affidavit dated 16.8.2001, the investigation officer 37 O.S.No.1400/2003 reiterates that the case made out against the petitioner is not that he is responsible for the approval of the telecast at low rates but the case against the petitioner was that during his tenure he did not initiate any action for discontinuing or cancelling the telecast and not informing the higher authorities about the irregularities of the contract and also contends that the petitioner has conspired with the private persons to show undue favour in continuing the telecast."
On page-6 in para-7, "From the narration of facts put forth by the prosecution, it cannot be inferred even faintly that there has been an agreement between Accused 1 to Accused 4 and the other accused inter se, to do any alleged illegal act. Each one of the accused worked as Director of Doordarshan, Bangalore at different points of time and none of them worked together. Their posting as Director of Doordarshan, Bangalore, is an official posting. There is a very little chance of 38 O.S.No.1400/2003 meeting of minds to infer any conspiracy on the part of accused persons in approving or allowing the telecast. Therefore, by any measure, it becomes difficult to accept the theory of conspiracy to bind Accused 1 to Accused 4 together for committing the offences."
On page-8 in para-8, "By close reading of the provisions of law and the facts put forth by the C.B.I., it does not any where indicate that the acts alleged can fit into any of the defined acts or omissions which constitute offence under Section 13 of the Act."
In para-9, "It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has produced document No.8 by his affidavit dated 18.8.2001 where under there is a reference of approval of the programme and the modified tariff for telecast of the programmes of different categories is also communicated which is effective from 15.10.1998. The modified rates effective from 15.10.1998 is far low when compared 39 O.S.No.1400/2003 to the disputed approved rate let alone the earlier schedule rates. The disputed telecast commenced just three days prior to the new schedule rates which came with effect from 15.10.1998. Therefore by the date when the petitioner was functioning as a Director, the modified rates were in force and they were quite far less than the approved rate for the disputed programme."
In para-10, "In the present case, the programme to be telecasted was between 8 and 8.30 p.m. Therefore it becomes clear that the modified rates apply to the case on hand. There might be a technical flaw in allowing the telecast for about 3 days before the modified rates came to be effective. However, at the time when the petitioner was working, the modified rates was very much in force. Therefore, it cannot be said or attributed to the petitioner that he acted dishonestly in allowing the telecast of the film on the rates much lower than the scheduled rates. During the period he was 40 O.S.No.1400/2003 working, the rates charged for the programme was also modified. It is common in competitive commercial dealings that whenever the tariffs are modified the benefit of concession would be given to the current and running programmes. In that view, I find that petitioner cannot held guilty of an offence under Section 13 of the Act and so also for an offence of conspiracy for the reasons discussed above. There is no faintest prima facie material to hold the petitioner guilty of an offence under Section 13 of the Act and for the offence of conspiracy. Accordingly, I find that it is a fit case where the inherent power has to be exercised and FIR registered against the petitioner to be quashed."
19. Thus, next episode which had been brought to the notice of the court through the evidence of P.W.1 would again play vital importance to establish the factum that booking case against the plaintiff was with some object which the 1st defendant knew as the plaintiff has categorically alleged against him that he to wreck 41 O.S.No.1400/2003 vengeance against him, has falsely implicated in the unconcerned crime, which he has pleaded and deposed categorically that even after quashing of this proceeding, defendants did not keep quiet and they preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.328/2002 as per Ex.P-43, on the ground that they have been aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court by its order dated 1.2.2002 did not inclined to entertain the SLP and dismissed the same. It is to be noted herein that right to prefer appeal to the higher Courts is a constitutional right conferred to the people of India, but herein on facts what plaintiff wants to impress upon the court would be that the defendants having knowledge of the fact that their foundation to implicate crime case along with other accused itself is malafide with an intention to wreck vengeance against the plaintiff to lower down his reputation in the eye of public at large for not doing some favourable work to first defendant, through the known political persons to the plaintiff who are in power either at Goa or in Karnataka. It is his further contention that even after quashing of crime case registered against him in so far him is 42 O.S.No.1400/2003 concerned, if really the defendants in particular defendants 1 and 2 were registered case bonafidely in the normal course, would not have preferred SLP to the Apex Court of India although they knew that there was absolutely no case was made out against him as the programme in question was already on air has completed 13 episodes before he could take charge of the section.
20. In the above such circumstances, only after dismissal of the SLP stated supra, plaintiff caused legal notice on defendants 1 and 2, notifying them that their act or commission or omission to take action as Police Officers of 3rd defendant is nothing but misuse of powers to wreck vengeance against him to lower down his reputation in the eyes of public at large and to that effect he has notified them to pay special and general damages for their wrong doing and filed present suit restricting claim only at Rs.2,50,000/-. This amount according him is claimed as special and general damages. It is therefore, now the court has to examine, as to the entitlement of such damages from the defendants. In this regard, in this civil suit, Court also to 43 O.S.No.1400/2003 examine whether defendants 1 and 2 have registered FIR against plaintiff on false and fabricated facts without examining them, as their object were to lower down the reputation of the plaintiff in the circle of friends, relatives and society at large.
21. The plaintiff directly alleged against defendants 1 and 2, that they entered into a criminal conspiracy with Mr.N.K.Mohan Ram, S.B.Bhajantri and Mr.A.Dasa. Further he alleged that they have secured all papers relating to "Lux Top 10" from Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore, to implicate falsely knowing fully well that he was not involved in the said crime and by such implication which would take several years to get a final verdict of the Courts by then plaintiff being sensitive person would commit suicide along with his family members, could not bear disgrace and degrade of the magnitude among friends, relatives and society at large. As already stated above that the plaintiff directly alleged against 1st defendant that he knew him when he was Superintendent of Police, Panaji in Goa State. Further, he has pleaded and deposed that when he was working 44 O.S.No.1400/2003 there at the place where the 1st defendant was working as Superintendent of Police, he could not solicited the approval of the then Chief Minister of Goa to make use of "Face to Face" programme platform for him. According to plaintiff he could not solicited the approval of the said programme as the questions being service matters relating to 1st defendant. Further, when he came over to Karnataka State, once again he could not prevail upon Mr.D.B.Kalmankar, Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council, Bangalore, to get seat for daughter of 1st defendant in reputed colleges either at Bangalore city or at Mysore. Thus with such specific allegation made against the 1st defendant he has pleaded and deposed that the 2nd defendant was Police Inspector, CBI, Bangalore at the relevant time was under the command of 1st defendant and he has acted to his tune without proper examination of the papers before he could register the crime case against him along with other persons who were involved in the said case.
22. The plaintiff, to corroborate his plea that 1st defendant and himself were worked in Goa State in their respective departments and to prove 45 O.S.No.1400/2003 that he could not able to solicit the then Hon'ble Chief Minister, Panaji-Goa, to put programme of 1st defendant in the "Face to Face" programme, has produced Ex.P-1 letter addressed to Mr.Pratap Singh Raneji, Hon'ble Chief Minister of Panaji-Goa. This is dated 14.3.1996 and it was on the subject of programme "Face to Face". In this letter he wrote that he is in agreement to the office of Chief Minister to delete certain questions relating to Service matters, unless the same are in public interest. He has also requested to instruct the office of Chief Minister, to return certain documents relating to Mr.Dilip Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Goa police, as the questions are relating to the officer concerned, have been in the light of their discussion. We could see from this document that a copy is marked to the Chief Secretary, Mr.G.C.Srivastav of Government of Goa-Panaji and another copy marked to Addl. D.G. Doordarshan, Mr.K.N.Pande. This was sent on Fax dated 14.3.1996. This has been obtained by plaintiff in exercise of Right to Information Act, 2005, much prior to the incident. The plaintiff has pleaded that defendants 1 and 2 have conspired with some officials of Doordarshan 46 O.S.No.1400/2003 Kendra, Bangalore, who are inimical terms with him, to secure documents so as to register false case. In other words to say that falsely implicate the plaintiff. In this regard, court to opine that the contents of Ex.P-1 establishes the factum of acquaintance of plaintiff with 1st defendant, much prior to the alleged crime case in question registered at their Bangalore office. Further from this letter coupled with the oral evidence of plaintiff establishes that they are knowing each other, even during 1996, since 1st defendant was working as Superintendent of Police Government of Goa in Panaji and the plaintiff in DDK Panaji-Goa. In fact, defendants 1 and 2 did not dispute that 1st defendant was worked at Panaji in Goa State during 1996 but facts remained establishes that from his not entering into the witness box to deny contents of Ex.P-1 and the evidence of plaintiff deposed corroborating the same that he could solicited the Hon'ble Chief Minister Goa State in the matter of service question to be put in the programme "Face to Face". The contention of learned counsel for defendants that Ex.P-1 is created for the purpose of this suit. It is to be noted herein that this letter is dated 14.3.1996 47 O.S.No.1400/2003 much prior to the crime case registered against the plaintiff and others in one thing and another thing is that same is obtained by plaintiff, in exercise of Right to Information Act, 2005. This is attested and issued by Central Assistant Public Information Officer. It is therefore, such document cannot be brushed aside only on such submission without there being oral and documentary evidence of the defendants. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the defendants that this document is created for the purpose of this suit could not be acceptable. In such view of the matter, this document would play a vital importance. Further to be noted herein, in so far as Ex.P-2 letter, is concerned, since addressed to Mr.Sharma, Director, C.B.I. New Delhi is dated 28.2.2002. The C.B.I. raid in question was taken place on 17.5.2000. It is therefore, the contents of this document could not be of much importance to attribute malafides on the part of defendants. In this regard learned counsel for defendants would right in contending that, same could have been written at the instance of plaintiff highlighting the reputation of plaintiff and make mention of the name of 1st defendant, forming his own opinion to 48 O.S.No.1400/2003 suit, plaintiff of the situation, who being aggrieved by the prosecution launched by the defendants. It is quite but natural that the person of that stature could have written the said letter to the Director of CBI, when he came to know about the fact that the crime case registered against the plaintiff came to be quashed by the High Court at the first instance and latter on finally worded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Further to be inferred herein that when those facts were brought to the notice of the then Chairman KLC Mr.D.B. Kalmankar, with whom the plaintiff worked in his office, could have incorporated those facts in his letter at his instance, however contents of such letter without examining either the author or the scribe to whom it were dictated, could not be of much importance to hold that all the contents are true and correct. In such view of the matter, this court is of the considered view that contents of this letter have no bearing on the issue on trial.
23. The next document produced by the plaintiff would be Ex.P-3 First Information Report registered on 12.5.2000 at 5.40 P.M. in Crime No.RC.10(A)/2000, wherein could see the date and 49 O.S.No.1400/2003 time of occurrence of Crime "between 1998 and 1999" at Bangalore, in Karnataka. In this FIR could see plaintiff is arrayed as Accused No.4 Mr.Mahesh Joshi, Formerly Executive Producer, DDK, Bangalore, presently Director, DDK, Gulbarga. In all there are seven accused persons, who are accused No.1 P.S.Palaniswamy, formerly Director, DDK, Bangalore, presently Director, DDK, Pondicherry. Accused No.2 V.Apparao, Farmerly Director, DDK, Bangalore, presently Controller of Programmes, DDK, Hyderabad. Accused No.3 S.Bhaskar, Executive Producer, DDK, Bangalore. Accused No.5 B.N.Chandrakumar, Asst. Station Director, DDK, Bangalore. Accused No.6 M/s.Creative Advances and Accused No.7 M/s.CUECOM Entertainment (P) Ltd., Chennai. This information was received from Mr.Pannir Selvam, Police Inspector, CBI, Bangalore, on 12.5.2000 at 8.50 P.M. in the residence of Presiding Officer of Court to try CBI cases and the case registered u/s.120-B r/w.420 IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Credible information has been received from a reliable source to the following effect:-
50 O.S.No.1400/2003That the accused A-1 Sri P.S.Palaniswamy, A-3 Sri.B.Bhaskar and A-5 Sri.B.N.Chandrakumar, during the period between 1998 and 1999, while functioning as public servants in their capacities as Station Director, Executive Producer and Producer respectively, entered into a criminal conspiracy with a private producer M/s.Creative Advances A-6, Bangalore to cheat the Government of India in the matter of collecting telecast fee, branding fee, additional spot buys etc., In pursuance of the said conspiracy, the private firm accused (A-6) submitted proposal for telecast of its "Lux Top- 10" a film based program through A-7, a Madras based advertising agency. A-7 firm was fully aware, that the charges collected by the DDK was lesser than the fixed rates and that the officials of DDK, Bangalore were causing undue gain to A-6. The accused public servants A-1, A-3 and A-5 dishonestly and fraudulently and by abusing their official position, knowing fully well that the private producer had quoted rates much less than fixed by the Directorate General of Doordarshan, New Delhi, for telecasting Film based programmes and that a 51 O.S.No.1400/2003 considerable loss would be caused to the Government, approved the program for telecast. A-2, who joined the Kendra as its Director on 30.10.1998 in connivance with A-3 allowed the less revenue collection to continue. A-4 Mr.Mahesh Joshi took over the Sponsored Programmes Section from A-3 and furthered the conspiracy and allowed the wrongful loss to continue. A-2 and A-4, full knowing that the rates fixed by A-1, A-3 and A-5 were less than the rates fixed for Film based programmes, dishonestly and fraudulently and by abusing their official position allowed the programmes of A-6 to continue. Between the period 1998 and 1999, the accused persons thus caused a wrongful loss of Rs.90,76,000/- to Government and corresponding gain to themselves.
The above acts of the accused persons constitute offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w.420 IPC and Sec.13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
24. Thus, the above information received from 2nd defendant came to be registered and it was registered on command of 1st defendant implicating 52 O.S.No.1400/2003 the plaintiff herein the suit, which if could be read found allegations would be made directly against Accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 and not against Accused No.4 Mr.Mahesh Joshi - plaintiff herein in relation to the offences said to have been committed between 1998-99. These facts were thoroughly examined by the Hon'ble High Court which could be seen from Ex.P-42, Hon'ble High Court on 24.8.2001 in Criminal Petition No. 937/2001, wherein ordered to quash the F.I.R. registered against plaintiff herein. It would be more relevant to extract the finding recorded by the Hon'ble High Court "petitioner cannot held guilty of an offence u/s.13 of the Act and so also for an offence of conspiracy for the reasons discussed in the aforesaid paragraphs. There is no faintest prima facie materials to hold the petitioner guilty of an offence u/s.13 of the Act and for an offence of conspiracy." It is shown that the said order was taken before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.328/2002 by the defendants and the Hon'ble Apex Court not inclined to interfere with the said order thereby on 01.02.2002 dismissed the special leave petition 53 O.S.No.1400/2003 establishing the factum of non-involvement of plaintiff herein in commission of offence alleged by defendants in Ex.P-3 F.I.R. registered on 12.5.2000 by 2nd defendant in Crime No.RC.10(A)/2000 at the command of 1st defendant. It is to be noted herein that registration of crime on allegation is one thing but after registration of such crime the duty cast upon the investigation police officers would be of more important and they have to examine the records thoroughly and not to act in casual manner, herein the case it is not that defendants registered crime against plaintiff arraying him as Accused No.4 in Ex.P-3, but they obtained search warrant from Court concerned as per Ex.P-7 and P-8 on 15.5.2000 to search residential home of plaintiff and his brother Mr.Gurunath Joshi, a Bank Officer residing in Bangalore city with his family. Thus, these actions of defendants give rise to the court to hold as to malafides of the defendants 1 and 2 in their actions on the false case registered against the plaintiff. In so far as their actions on FIR are not disputed by them.
25. Ex.P-4 is certified copy maintained by Special Judge for C.B.I. cases in R.C.No. 54 O.S.No.1400/2003 10(A)/2000/CBI-BLR showing filing of application u/s.93 of Cr.P.C. by 2nd defendant on 15.5.2000 praying for issue of search warrants in his favour authorizing him to conduct searches at the premises mentioned in the application. Accordingly, Court ordered to issue search warrant in favour of 2nd defendant. Ex.P-5 is certified copy of the application filed u/s.93 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P-6 is search list which would play a vital importance, since defendants here in this suit have failed to produce incriminating documents to suspect the integrity of plaintiff on their search of documents from the house of plaintiff and his brother Mr.Gurunath Joshi. The plaintiff has produced Ex.P-9 certified copy of the complaint filed by him u/s.200 of Cr.P.C. on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City in PCR No.364/1999 which came to be registered in C.C. No.185/2000. In this complaint, plaintiff herein arrayed as many as 27 accused persons of whom, accused No.3, 4 and 11 are none other Mr.N.K.Mohan Ram, Mr.A.Dasa and Mr.S.B.Bhajantri. In his complaint, he has prayed that accused No.3 has committed offences punishable u/s.500 r/w. 34 and 506 of IPC. Accused No.4 and 11 have said to have been 55 O.S.No.1400/2003 committed similar such offences and rest of the accused have said to have committed offences of Sec.500 r/w. 34 of IPC. It is alleged against accused No.4 and 11 being members of SC/ST, threatened him to file complaint under the "Prevention of Atrocities against SC/ST Act" and threatened to file a false complaint to National Commission of SC/ST. Ex.P-10 is a Notification issued by Government of Karnataka dated 10.4.2000 notifying Mr.C.H.Hanumantharaya, Advocate, as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct prosecution in Crime No.461/99 of J.C.Nagar police station, Bangalore. This notification is produced by plaintiff to show as to how the persons mentioned above, in particular, Mr.S.B.Bhajantri is capable to engage Senior Lawyer to conduct prosecution on his behalf. It is to be noted herein engaging counsel of his choice is right conferred under constitution which cannot be questioned by the plaintiff herein, but facts remain true that they are all officers and employees of DDK where the plaintiff herein was working also as one of the officer. These documents established dispute inter-se between the plaintiff and the officers-officials of DDK for the reasons best known 56 O.S.No.1400/2003 to the plaintiff and those officials who are not examined before the court either by the plaintiff or the defendants. It is therefore, what court to infer from such evidence placed by the plaintiff would be that at the relevant time there was some dispute in the matter of internal management of the affairs of DDK. The plaintiff produced Ex.P-11 certified copy of PCR No.11/2001 filed by plaintiff herein against Mr.N.K.Mohan Ram, AMr.Dasa, Mr.N.Raghavan, Mr.Ashok Kumar, Mr.K.R.Srinivasa, Mr.S.B. Bhajantri and Mr.B.Ashok which came to be registered in CC No.8818/2008. He has alleged against those accused under Sections 389, 327, 506, 499 r/w. Sec.120-B of IPC. The contents of these documents can be taken for limited purpose to hold that at the relevant period there was dispute inter-se between plaintiff and the other officers and employees of DDK which for the reasons best known to them. Ex.P-13 is an application filed u/s.451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of documents seized under Search List dated 17.5.2000 in R.C.No.10(A)/2000. Ex.P-14 is objection filed on behalf of prosecution opposing the said application. Ex.P-15 is certified copy of Criminal Petition No.937/2001 filed by plaintiff 57 O.S.No.1400/2003 against Central Bureau of Investigation/SPE u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the investigation and F.I.R. as against plaintiff is concerned.
26. The plaintiff has produced Ex.P-16 a letter addressed by G.M.Shirahatti to plaintiff in connection with the approval of scripts during his tenure, a clarification is required by the Directorate and to make it convenient to attend the meeting at DDK, Bangalore, on 8th April 2001. Ex.P-17 is a reply of plaintiff to Mr.G.M.Shirahatti is dated 20.4.2001. Ex.P-18 is letter addressed to V.Appa Rao by Mr. G.M.Shirahatti, Director, DDK, Bangalore is dated 10.4.2001. Ex.P-19 is reply of Mr.Appa Rao, Retired Controller of Programmes to Mr.G.M.Shirahatti, Director, Doordarshan Kendra, dated 23.4.2001. It is to be noted herein that all these letter correspondence are between Director of DDK, plaintiff and Mr.Appa Rao are nothing to do with raid conducted by defendants pursuant to Ex.P-3 F.I.R. dated 12.5.2000. It is therefore the court repeatedly said that they are in respect of inter-se dispute in the matter of the affairs of DDK. Ex.P-20 is an affidavit of plaintiff in CRL.P.No.937/2001 filed against C.B.I. Ex.P-21 is 58 O.S.No.1400/2003 statement of objections filed on behalf of C.B.I. to the application filed by plaintiff.
27. Ex.P-22 is a letter dated 23.8.1999 from plaintiff to the Director General, Doordarshan, New Delhi that he has reported himself for duty on tour today 23.8.1999. Ex.P-23 is letter dated 8.11.1999 addressed to Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore, reporting himself for duty on 8.11.1999 on completion of 3 months tour to New Delhi. Ex.P-24 is a letter dated 21.12.1999 addressed by plaintiff to Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore. Ex.P- 25 is certified copy of affidavit filed by plaintiff in CRL.P.No.937/2001.
28. Ex.P-26 is letter addressed for M/s.Creative Advances to Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore, and Proposal for Top 10 songs of DD-1 Prime Time on minimum guarantee basis. Countdown songs of new Kannada films on six months additional spot buy basis for 52 episodes. The schedule of their programme of 30 minutes at 8.00 PM on Mondays after the completion of commissioned programme titled "Swarna Sanchaya". Ex.P-27 is statistics enclosed to Ex.
59 O.S.No.1400/2003P-26. Ex.P-28 letter addressed to Mr.Palaniswamy, Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore, by Directorate General, Doordarshan dated 8.9.1998 to ensure that the programme does not lead to any sort of petition by any other party. Ex.P-29 is letter addressed to Director, Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore, from Deputy Director General, Doordarshan, on 1.9.1998. Ex.P-30 is letter addressed by Asst. Controller of Sales for Controller of Sales to the Director, Doordarshan Kendra, modifying the Rate Card w.e.f.15.10.1998 is dated 9.11.1998. Ex.P-31 is affidavit filed by plaintiff in CRL.P.No.937/2001 dated 24.8.2001. Ex.P-32 is status report in CBI case RC.10(A)/2000/Bangalore submitting that result of investigation is not included in the report and to grant two months time to complete the investigation. This was submitted by 2nd defendant. Ex.P-33 is again status report of CBI submitted by 2nd defendant to grant two months time to complete the investigation.
29. Ex.P-34 is a letter addressed from M/s. Creative Advances to the Director, Doordarshan Kendra, dated 10th July 1998 proposal for Top 10 60 O.S.No.1400/2003 songs on DD-1 Prime Time along with copy of concept. Ex.P-35 is a telegraphic message passed by plaintiff to defendant No.1 and 2 informing that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had quashed the case against him. Ex.P-36 is a reply thereon informing him that, if the Department is not considering for filing of Special Leave Petition, the documents will be returned to plaintiff after obtaining permission from the Court. Ex.P-37 is a telegraphic request made by plaintiff to 2nd defendant that seized documents have been retained are belonging to him are to be released in his favour. Ex.P-38 is objection filed by the prosecution for the application filed by plaintiff u/s.309 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P-39 is a letter addressed by Mr.S.B.Bhajanthri to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, not to appoint plaintiff as Deputy Resident Commissioner to Government of Karnataka at New Delhi. It is to be noted herein that from the evidence placed on record by the plaintiff established that relation with the said officer of DDK was not cordial since they are alleging each other. The said officer has alleged against the plaintiff that he hates people of certain sections of society and to that effect, even he goes 61 O.S.No.1400/2003 to the extent to lodge complaint before police which came to be registered as criminal case was tried and acquitted is also for the reasons best known to them, since the said officer is not examined before this court and he is not a party herein the suit, but all such evidence has to be considered by this court only to hold that there was some mis- management of affairs in the DDK at the relevant period.
30. Ex.P-40 is legal notice dated 6.11.2002 caused on defendants 1 and 2. Ex.P-41 is order dated 20.9.2002 in Criminal Appeal No.904/2002 filed by plaintiff against 3rd defendant to direct 3rd defendant to release the documents under search list forthwith and the Hon'ble High Court having gone through the list found "Except item No.4 namely one file containing note sheets of inter- departmental correspondence of Doordarshan as well as item No.21, one SBI Demand Draft, the rest of the documents seized from the custody of the petitioner are his personal records." Keeping in view these facts, Hon'ble High Court ordered to return the documents except items 4 and 21 from the list produced at Annexure-A1. It is therefore, in this 62 O.S.No.1400/2003 suit, item Nos.4 and 21 would become vital documents, and since rest of the documents seized from the house of plaintiff and his brother are his personal records. On the contrary, defendants have failed to adduce either oral or documentary evidence much less, failed to produce item Nos.4 and 21 seized from custody of plaintiff herein to establish preponderance of probability to connect his participation in the crime said to have been committed between 1998 and 1999 alleged by defendant No.2 or alleged by defendants in Ex.P-3 F.I.R. that he conspired along with accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 7, since Hon'ble High Court as per Ex.P-42 in Criminal Petition No.937/2001 on 24.8.2001 ordered to quash the F.I.R. and proceedings in so far as plaintiff which was subsequently dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court as per Ex.P-43 on 1.2.2002. It is therefore, the only piece of evidence which should have been produced by defendants would be item No.4 and 21 documents said to have been seized from custody of plaintiff as found in Ex.P-41 by Hon'ble High Court from the list produced at Annexure-A1. It is therefore, the contention of learned counsel for plaintiff that defendants without examining records, although plaintiff was 63 O.S.No.1400/2003 not responsible for the alleged offence said to have been committed as alleged in Ex.P-3, he was falsely implicated by 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant being his subordinate was under his command registered a false case against plaintiff along with other accused with the assistance of employees of Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore thereby danced to his tune is established by plaintiff. Ex.P-44 is again an affidavit filed in CRL.P. No.937/2001 by plaintiff wherein he has sworn in that he was just an Executive Producer and there were two officers senior to him in so far as Bangalore Doordarshan was concerned.
31. The plaintiff, in order to show that officials of Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore, harassed him by giving a complaint u/s.3(X) of SC & ST Prevention Act, 1989 produced Ex.P-45 F.I.R. registered on the basis of the complaint filed by Mr.S.B. Bhajantri, against plaintiff herein for the offence said to have been committed on 01.12.1999 at 3.45 PM in the office of Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore. In so far as this complaint is concerned court cannot give its opinion, since Mr. S.B.Bhajantri is not a party nor a witness to this 64 O.S.No.1400/2003 suit. Ex.P-46 is copy of complaint dated.12.1999 lodged by Mr.S.B.Bhajanthri, Production Assistant, Doordarshan Kendra. Ex.P-47 is a charge sheet submitted by J.C.Nagar Sub-Division, Bangalore city, against plaintiff herein for the offence of Sec.3(1)(X) of SC/ST Prevention and Atrocities Act, 1989 and u/s.506 of IPC. It is important note herein that this case was tried by Special Judge - 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore City and on 24th June 2004, order to acquit the plaintiff herein for the offences charged against him u/s.3(1)(X) of SC & ST (Prevention & Atrocities) Act, 1989 r/w.506 of IPC, since Mr.Bhajanthri (P.W.1), Mr.K.T.Rajashekar (P.W.2) and Mr.J.Shivakumar (P.W.3) have failed to support the charges leveled against plaintiff herein. In this regard, Court to observe here whether plaintiff had committed such offences on Mr.Bhajanthri and similar such people working in Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore when he was working with them or whether he abused Mr.Bhajantri with an intention to lower down his reputation in the society or vice-versa are nothing to do with this suit, since the plaintiff herein has to prove the malafides of the defendants that they to wreck vengeance have falsely implicated him in the 65 O.S.No.1400/2003 crime registered against the other officers of DDK with an intention to lower down his reputation in the society at large for not doing favour to 1st defendant when he was working at Goa and in Karnataka.
32. Ex.P-49 is a copy of Oppressed Informative Weekly published from Bangalore with a heading ED Mahesh Joshi threatens Legal Action on Production Assistants, is nothing to do with the dispute between plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3.
Ex.P-50 is copy of New Indian Express dated 18th May 2000 under the heading "CBI raids DD officials' premises". The New Indian Express is a National Daily newspaper by its own reputation across India. According to learned counsel for defendants, this was not referred to plaintiff herein, but refers to the raid conducted by CBI following complaints that the officers were responsible for the losses that occurred at Doordarshan while allotting programmes for telecast, the CBI had conducted raids. Of the five officials, two were attached to Bangalore Doordarshan and the other three were attached to Gulbarga, Hyderabad and Pondicherry 66 O.S.No.1400/2003 Doordarshan Kendra. Sources said the officials who are now at Gulbarga, Hyderabad and Pondicherry had earlier worked in Bangalore Doordarshan. Though the name of plaintiff was not made published by 1st defendant, facts remain true that plaintiff worked as ED, Bangalore Doordarshan Kendra and by then attached to Gulbarga Doordarshan Kendra. The news item published by the New Indian Express, Bangalore city section, we could see name of plaintiff and it was published that Mahesh Joshi had earlier served in Bangalore centre, in Ex.P-51 Daily News Paper Kannada Prabha dated 18.5.2000, though the name of plaintiff was not made published by 1st defendant it was published that the residential home of officers attached to Gulbarga and residential home of all officers attached to Bangalore Doordarshan Kendra were raided. In Ex.P-53, the Deccan Herald daily newspaper published that CBI officers tender unconditional apology to a Division Bench comprising justice Mr.M.F.Saldana and Mr. N.K.Patil, while dealing with a petition filed by one Mr.Ramesh complaining about high handedness of the CBI officers, wherein could see the name of 1st 67 O.S.No.1400/2003 defendant Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, the then Superintendent of Police, now posted to Hyderabad as DIG, CBI, at the relevant time, this has been produced by plaintiff to show that 1st defendant goes to any extent even to commit contempt against the courts. Thought this document cannot be said a relevant document to hold that the same is corroborate the fact of false implication of plaintiff herein the FIR, is produced to show his conduct and the way in which he worked in the CBI. Ex.P-54 is a news item published in Deccan Herald, it was published under the heading CBI raids DD top members. Ex.P-56 is a letter addressed by Mr.Ananth Kumar to Mr.Arun Jaitley Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting is dated 8.12.1999 along with representation of plaintiff herein. Ex.P-57 is a letter addressed by Mr.B.V.Sanath Kumar, President to CEO, Prasar Bharathi alleging against Mr.Appa Rao, Mr.Mahesh Joshi and Mr.Bhaskar who are all part of the criminal gang. Ex.P-58 and P-59 are judgment and decree dated 29.11.2008 passed in O.S.No. 2723/2000 filed by plaintiff herein against Programme Staff Association of A.I.R. and Doordarshan and 27 others. He has instituted this 68 O.S.No.1400/2003 suit on 13.4.2000 for recovery of damages of Rs.50,000/- from each of the defendants 2 to 4 and 11; Rs.40,000/- from defendant No.7; Rs.20,000/- from each of the defendants 5, 6 and 8; Rs.15,000/- from defendant No.17; Rs.10,000/- from each of the defendants 9, 10, 12 to 25 and 28 and Rs.5,000/- from each of the defendants 26 and 27 for having defamed him. In so far as defendants 1, 9 to 17, 20 to 27, the suit came to be dismissed before passing this judgment. The Court formulated three important issues and recorded affirmative findings on issues 1 and 2 thereby, held plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as damages from defendants 2, 3 to 8, 18, 19 and 28 jointly and severally with current and future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The Court held that all these defendants have collusively joined hands with defendant No.3 namely Mr.N.K.Mohan Ram and those persons served scandalous, libelous, derogatory remarks against him and all defendants who are members of PSA had endorsed their signatures in Minutes Book. Further held that plaintiff proves that he suffered various damages as stated in plaint para No.24. The co-ordinate Civil Court recorded such findings 69 O.S.No.1400/2003 on 29.11.2008. The plaintiff herein has produced most of documents which were produced in the said suit also in the present suit for reference as already stated supra. Ex.P-60 is News Items dated 18.5.2000 published in The Hindu about raids conducted by CBI. It is important to note herein that though defendant No.2 Mr.B.Pannir Selvam was examined as RW-1 in Criminal Misc. No.3616/2009 marked as Ex.P-61 through P.W.1, has failed to give his evidence in this suit. The evidence recorded by Special Judge for CBI cases in the matter of return of seized documents as per search list is nothing to do with dispute in issues between parties herein, however from the evidence placed by the plaintiff as stated above, could able to establish that he was falsely implicated by defendants 1 and 2 arraying him as accused No.4 in Ex.P-3 F.I.R. which came to be quashed by Hon'ble High Court as per Ex.P-42 on 24.8.2001 and ultimately, as per Ex.P-43 Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.328/2002 on 1.2.2002. In the meantime, over such period, it is quite but natural that plaintiff had suffered severe mental agony besides loss of money incurred to file proper applications before 70 O.S.No.1400/2003 Special Judge for CBI cases in RC No.10(A)/2000, to file Criminal Appeal No.904/ 2002 and to file Criminal Petition No.971/2001 and so on as stated above. Further, by doing so the reputation of plaintiff could have been jeopardized due to publication in daily newspaper. Although his name was not published in all the newspaper but facts remained established that in some of the newspaper, his name was published, resulting thereby damaged his reputation among friends, relatives and public at large. In other words to say the injuries that he sustained as a result of defamatory statement made by CBI in particular, defendants 1 and 2 as found in the news items along with other accused persons against whom crime case was registered. It is therefore, plaintiff has to be held entitle for damages to be recovered from defendants 1 and 2 in the form of money, since damages caused for defamation are purely compensatory and claim of the plaintiff made in the plaint and as deposed, viewed from any angle, restricting to Rs.2,50,000/- towards special and general damages could not be said either excessive or exorbitant or enrichment. In other words to say that the plaintiff has moderately claimed damages 71 O.S.No.1400/2003 from defendants, in particular, from defendants 1 and 2. Thus reaching to such conclusion, this Court to hold that they are personally liable to pay such damages to plaintiff and not the 3rd defendant
- CBI considering the fact that 2nd defendant acted under the command of defendant No.1 to register false case implicating plaintiff herein as one of the accused along with other accused persons in Ex. P-3 F.I.R. Further to be noted herein that the officers of the State to act as per law and for their lawless actions tax payers money could not be wasted to hold the 3rd defendant CBI to liable jointly with them.
33. The fact whether P.W.2 S.S.Rajesh who knew plaintiff, since two decades had read Deccan Herald news paper or not? Facts remain established that it was published at the instance of defendants 1 and 2. It is therefore, evidence of P.W.1 that defendants have deliberately, dishonestly, fabricated documents with a view to maliciously prosecute him in order to wreck vengeance against him has to be believable and the same is established from the evidence on record placed by the plaintiff. The fact that defendants 72 O.S.No.1400/2003 fought even up to Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.328/2002 corroborate this evidence that such SLP was filed at the instance of defendant No.1 pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble High Court as per Ex.P-42. In this judgment, although held that plaintiff cannot be held guilty of an offence u/s.13 of the Act and so also for an offence of conspiracy for the reasons discussed above, there is no faintest prima facie materials to hold the petitioner guilty of an offence u/s.13 of the Act and for an offence of conspiracy. It is therefore, plaintiff has proved the fact that false case was registered by the defendants 1 and 2.
34. Thus reaching to such conclusion, contentions of learned counsel for defendants that plaintiff had no such reputation and he used Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore, for his personal exposure, to dance to the tune of vested interest personalities. Further contention that in respect of programmes of Doordarshan Kendra, he himself used to appear in the programmes as Director of DDK and he always dancing to the tune of political voices and he is taking undue advantage of their weakness, thereby could able to confer awards 73 O.S.No.1400/2003 although he was not entitled for such titles, further would contend that the awards are conferred on him not because of his reputation and service rendered in the field of information and broadcasting, but because of yielding to political power. It is to be noted herein that the Court is not on such issues as such, such contentions are held have no relevance here in this suit. As already stated above that the scope of this suit is very limited and the Court to decide whether defendants 1 and 2 have falsely implicated plaintiff in Ex.P-3. The said fact is already examined by this Court and the plaintiff herein has placed his oral evidence coupled with oral evidence of P.W.2. Further to corroborate evidence of plaintiff has produced few relevant and irrelevant documents which on close scrutiny from the relevant evidence establish that defendants 1 and 2 have fraudulently, dishonestly, maliciously prosecuted him without there being any reasonable or probable cause and it goes without saying that plaintiff and his family members have been humiliated and disgraced in the estimation of his friends, relatives and other well known circles, as such, he has suffered damages. Thus, reaching to 74 O.S.No.1400/2003 such conclusions, findings on issues 1 and 2 would be record in the Affirmative.
35. In view of the affirmative findings on issues 1 and 2, plaintiff is held entitle for damages which, he has moderately restricted at Rs.2,50,000/- for the reasons pleaded in the plaint, as such he is held entitled to recover damages from defendants. Further held that their liability in paying the same shall be joint and several. As already stated above that the 3rd defendant is C.B.I. represented by Director, New Delhi is an institution and run by tax payers money could not be held liable to pay the damaged jointly with defendants 1 and 2. In other words to say that defendants 1 and 2 are personally liable to pay special and general damages, amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- to the plaintiff with cost and interest at 6% p.a. from the date of suit till realization. Accordingly, findings on issues 3 and 4 would be record in the Affirmative.
36. Issue No.7: In view of the above findings and in the result, this court passes the following:
75 O.S.No.1400/2003O R D E R The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost in the following terms:-
(a) The plaintiff is entitled to recover special and general damages from defendants 1 and 2 amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- with cost and interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of suit till realization.
(b) It is hereby order that liability of defendants 1 and 2 shall be joint and several and they are personally liable to pay such amount to plaintiff.
(c) The suit filed by plaintiff against defendant No.3 is hereby dismissed.
(d) Draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the J.W., transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 5th day of November 2016).
(Krishnamurthy B.Sangannanavar) IX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
76 O.S.No.1400/2003A N N E X U R E List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
P.W.1 Mahesh Joshi P.W.2 S.S.Rajesh
List of witnesses examined for defendants:
Nil List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P-1 Letter dated 14.3.1996
Ex.P-2 Letter dated 28.2.2002
Ex.P-3 Certified copy of FIR
Ex.P-4 Certified copy of order sheet in RC
No.10(A)/2000
Ex.P-5 Certified copy of application filed by
I.O. u/s.93 of Cr.P.C.
Ex.P-6 Certified copy of search list
Ex.P-7 & 8 Certified copy of warrants
Ex.P-9 Certified copy of complaint in CC
No.185/2000
Ex.P-10 Certified copy of notification dated
10.4.2000
Ex.P-11 Certified copy of complaint in C.C.
No.8818/2008
Ex.P-12 Certified copy of letter dt.12.1.2001
Ex.P-13 & 14 Certified copy of application filed u/s.451 and 457 of CRPC and objection 77 O.S.No.1400/2003 Ex.P-15 Certified copy of petition in Crl.P.No.937/2001 Ex.P-16 to 19 Certified copy of letters dated 3.4.2001, 20.4.2001, 10.4.2001 & 23.4.2001 Ex.P-20 Certified copy of affidavit in CRL.P.No.937/2001 Ex.P-21 Certified copy of objection filed by CBI Ex.P-22 to 24 Certified copy of letters dated 23.8.99, 8.11.99 & 21.12.99 Ex.P-25 Certified copy of affidavit filed in Crl.P.937/2001 Ex.P-26 Certified copy of letter dt.10.7.98 Ex.P-27 Certified copy of statistics report Ex.P-28 Certified copy of letter dt.8.9.98 Ex.P-29 & 30 Certified copy of Fax cover sheet dated 1.9.98 and letter dt.9.11.98 Ex.P-31 to 33 Certified copy of affidavit in Crl.P.937/2001 and status report Ex.P-34 Certified copy of report dt.10.7.98 Ex.P-35 Certified copy of telegram dt.29.10.2001 Ex.P-36 Reply dated 31.10.2001 Ex.P-37 Certified copy of telegram dt.31.10.2001 Ex.P-38 Certified copy of objections to the application u/s.309 of Cr.P.C. in RC.10(A)/2000 Ex.P-39 Certified copy of speed post Ex.P-40 Office copy of legal notice Ex.P-41 Certified copy of judgment passed in Crl.A.904/2002 78 O.S.No.1400/2003 Ex.P-42 Certified copy of order in Crl.P.No.937/2001 Ex.P-43 Certified copy of order of Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(Crl) No. 328/2002 Ex.P-44 Certified copy of affidavit in Crl.P.No.937/2001 Ex.P-45 Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.461/99 of J.C.Nagar police station Ex.P-46 Certified copy of complaint dated 2.12.1999 Ex.P-47 Certified copy of charge sheet in Spl.C.C.No.169/2000 Ex.P-48 Certified copy of judgment in Special CC.No.169/2000 Ex.P-49 Certified copy of news article dated 23.5.1999 Ex.P-50 Copy of news paper article in New Indian Express dt.18.5.2000 Ex.P-51 Copy of news paper article in Kannada Prabha dt.18.5.2000 Ex.P-52 Receipt for having obtained news papers Ex.P-53 Certified copy of news paper article in Deccan Herald Ex.P-54 Certified copy of news article published in Deccan Herald Ex.P-55 Receipt for having certified copy of article in news paper Ex.P-56 Copy of letter written to Mr.Arun Jaitley by Mr.Anath kumar Ex.P-57 Letter of Doordarshan Programme Producers Association Ex.P-58 & 59 Certified copy of judgment & decree in O.S.No.2723/2000 79 O.S.No.1400/2003 Ex.P-60 Copy of news paper The Hindu dated 18.5.2000 Ex.P-61 Copy of deposition of Mr.Paneer Selvam in Crl.Misc.3616/2009 List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Nil IX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.