Karnataka High Court
Tv9 Karnataka Pvt Ltd vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 3 September, 2019
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6926 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. TV9 KARNATAKA PVT LTD
REP. BY SRI MAHENDRA MISHRA,
DIRECTOR TV-9,
NO.13/1, OPPOSITE TO HOCKEY STADIUM,
RHENIUS STREET, CIVIL STATION,
RICHMOND TOWN,
BANGALORE-560 025.
2. SHRI M.S. NAGESH GOWDA
S/O SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT,
TV9 KARNATAKA PVT LTD.,
NO.163, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
KAMALA NAGAR, BASWESWARA NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 079.
3. SHRI H.V. KIRAN
S/O R.VENKATA RAMU,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENT,
TV9 KARNATAKA PVT LTD.,
R/AT NO.124, 2ND MAIN, ITI LAYOUT,
CHANDRA LAYOUT, I STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 039.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: NITIN R, ADVOCATE)
2
AND
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
CBI/SCB/CHENNAI,
BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, CBI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: P PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL PP )
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE CHARGE SHEET AND CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE
CRIMINAL CASE REGD. AS C.C.No.173/2015 OF
CBI/SCB/CHENNAI, ON THE FILE OF THE XVII, ACMM, SPECIAL
COURT FOR CBI CASES, BENGALURU CITY AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioners are accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the charge sheet filed by the respondent for the alleged offences punishable under sections 120-B and 153(A)(1)(b) of IPC, section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 and sections 5 read with 16 of Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 02.03.2012, Sri.Janardhana Reddy, former Minister in the Government of Karnataka who was remanded to judicial custody in Hyderabad 3 in another case, was brought to the Special Court for CBI cases at Bangalore, due to his involvement in Case No.RC.18(A)/2011/CBI/ACB/Bangalore. As he was getting down from the vehicle, media personnel started taking photo/video and some objects were thrown on them from the Advocates' side and there was manhandling of media persons by the advocates. The media persons retreated beyond the barricades and retaliated by throwing stones. Sri.Janardhana Reddy was taken to the court via basement entry near Karnataka Bank ATM. Since the situation was becoming worse, additional police force was called from police divisions of the city to augment strengths at City Civil Court, Mysore Bank Circle and K.R. Circle. At about 11.45 a.m. when the court formalities were over, Sri Janardhana Reddy was taken to Bowring Hospital for medical checkup and thereafter he was taken to the CBI Office at Ganganagar. After he left the court complex, clashes broke out in front side of court complex near the CBI Court (northern side of the complex, facing Government Arts College grounds). The fracas between the advocates and the media personnel, which started in front of the CBI Court then extended to the main entrance (Western 4 side). The police, led by Sri.Gachinakatti, tried to separate the media persons from advocates and to get them away from the court premises. In this melee some miscreants pelted stones against each group, leading to large scale stone pelting.
3. The allegations against the present petitioners are that accused No.2 Sri.M.S.Nagesh Gowda - Input Chief of TV9 news channel, delegated Court Correspondent Sri Ramesha, Crime Reporter Sri Ram Prasad and Bureau Chief H.V.Kiran (accused No.3) to cover the news about the former Minister Sri.Gali Janardhana Reddy who was to be produced at CBI Special Court on that day. At about 11 a.m., the Bureau people informed accused No.2 about the clashes taking place between the media and advocates. The material allegation made against the petitioners read as under:-
"At about 3.40 p.m. A-3 H.V.Kiran conveyed a false news to A-2 Nagesh Gowda of A-1 Company to the effect that, 'Police Constable dead due to treatment failure. Police Constable is dead. Constable Mahadevaiah is dead', fully knowing it to be false. A-2, in pursuance of the 5 criminal conspiracy telecasted the said news item captioned 'BREAKING NEWS'.
4(i) Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submitted that the allegations made against the petitioners do not attract the ingredients of any of the above offences. Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 is struck off from the statute as ultra vires of the Constitution by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHREYA SINGHAL vs. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 2015 SC 1523. As such, charge under section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 cannot stand against the petitioners.
(ii) Insofar as the offence under sections 5 read with 16 of Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 is concerned, the institution of the said proceedings without compliance of section 18 of the same Act is legally untenable.
(iii) Likewise, no prosecution could have been instituted against the petitioners in respect of the alleged offences punishable under section 153-A(1)(b) of IPC as well as the conspiracy to commit the said offences in view of the bar 6 contained under section 196 of Cr.P.C., except with the previous sanction of the Central Government or State Government.
(iv) In the instant case, none of these mandatory requirements have been complied with by the prosecution. As a result, learned Magistrate was debarred from taking cognizance of the alleged offences against the petitioners and hence, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners being opposed to law and abuse of process of court are liable to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent does not dispute the legal position that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal's case, referred supra, charge under section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 cannot be sustained. He also does not dispute the fact that the mandatory requirements of section 18 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 as well as requirements of section 196 of Cr.P.C., have not been complied in the instant case.
7
6. In view of this factual and legal position, the impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioners cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. Proceedings initiated by respondent in C.C.No.173/2015 of CBI/SCB/Chennai on the file of XVII ACMM, Special Court for CBI Cases, Bengaluru are quashed insofar as the petitioners namely accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are concerned. Liberty is reserved to the respondent to proceed against the petitioners on the same cause of action, after complying with the legal requirements in accordance with law, if found necessary.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bss