Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K. Ramachandra Murthy vs Bobbili Rama Rao (Complainant) And Anr. on 9 April, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1991(2)ALT339
ORDER N.D. Patnaik, J.
1. The petitioner is the second accused in CC No. 181/89 in the court of the II Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Tanuku. He has filed this petition Under Section 482 Crl. P.C. to quash the proceedings against him. That case was instituted on a complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein for defamation Under Section 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant alleged that there was a news item in the Udayam Telugu daily dt. 27-4-89 making certain derogatory statements about the residents of Kakileru village. The complainant being a resident of that village and he is Upa-Sarpanch of that village says that hi reputation damaged and therefore he filed this complaint.
2. The petitioner is a resident-Editor of Udayam Newspaper at Vijayawada. His contention is two fold. One is that the allegations in the case do not constitute an offence Under Sections 500 or 501 IPC and the imputation is of a general nature and is not intended to make any imputation against any individual in particular. The other ground is that under the Press and Registration of Books Act only the Editor, Printer and publisher of a news paper can be made responsible for publication but none else can be made as accused and since he was neither a printer, nor editor nor publisher of the news paper, he is not liable.
3. In order to appreciate the first contention my attention has been drawn to the particular news item published in Udayam, West Godavari District, Supplement dt. 17-4-89. The complainant says that in the said news item it is stated that the youth and elders of Kakileru were playing cards throughout the day even without attending to their normal avocations and in spite of protest made by the villagers they did not stop their practice. It further says that one Karate Master by name J. Tammal Naidu, who is A-3 got it stopped by beating them. As I have stated above the contention of the petitioner is that the said imputation is not aimed at any particular individual but it is a general imputation about the villagers of Kakileru and so the complainant cannot be said to be a person aggrieved by it.
4. Section 199 Cr. P.C. says that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. The question is whether the complainant is a person aggrieved by the publication of the news item in Udayam. Explanation (2) to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code reads that it may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning company or an association or collection of persons as such. Several decisions have been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner on this question.
5. In K.M. Mathew v. T.V. Balan, 1985 Crl. L.J. 1039 the Kerala High Court held that "The language of the 'Explanation' is no doubt wide. Nevertheless, the collection of the persons must be an identifiable body so that it is possible to say with definiteness that the particular group of persons, as distinguished from the rest of the community, was defamed. The identity of the collection of persons must be established as relatable to the defamatory words or imputations. Only a definite and determinate body would amount to 'a collection of persons' referred to in Section 499 IPC read with Explanation 2 thereto".
On the facts of that case the learned Judge held that the offending passage did not refer to an identifiable and determinate group of persons.
6. In another decision of Kerala High Court reported in M.P. Narayana Pillai v. M.P. Chack, 1986 Crl. L.J. 2002 an article was published in a news paper under the caption "Syrian Christians and National Integrity". The complainant who claims himself to be a, member of Syrian Christian Community alleges that certain imputations contained in Para 2 of the article are defamatory to his community and as such defamatory to himself also. It is pointed out in that case. "Only if there is a definite association or collection of persons capable of being identified it could be said that the imputation against it affects all of them and any member of the class can say that the imputation is against him also personally so as to entitle him to file a complaint for defamation". It was further pointed out that Syrian Christians are an immigrant community which is a fluctuating mass, the members of which could be found throughout the world even though they are mainly concentrated in Kerala. It is an unascertainable body of persons which cannot be brought within the meaning of association or collection of persons as such mentioned in Explanation-2 to Section 499 IPC.
7. In another case reported in Asha Parkesh v. State of Bihar, 1977 Crl. L.J. 21 it was held that portrayal of a lawyer in the film Nadan does not have any relevance to the lawyers as a class. The dialogues and visible representations point out only to Advocates who indulge in such practices. The impugned portions of the film cannot lead any reasonable person to form the conclusion that Advocates are pests and despicable bunch.
8. In Narottamdas v. Macanbhai, 1970 Crl. L.J. 1790 an editorial in a news paper referred to: lawyers were described as dispute brokers in the news paper editorial and their resort to strike was criticised. It was held that the brokers in dispute is used in regard to lawyers as a class and is not referable to determined Section of lawyers viz., the lawyers who are participating in the agitation.
9. In all these cases as pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant (respondent) the reference was to members of a community or a profession in general and not to identifiable group of persons. He has contended that the report in newspaper which refers to both youth and eiders of the village Kakileru is meant for all of them in the village which is an identifiable group of persons and complainant being one of the residents of that village is an aggrieved person. In Alok Mitra v. E.V. Choudar ,1982 (1) APLJ 98 an article was published in the magazine to the effect that Muramanda village in Andhra Pradesh has a unique notoriety. Daughters of the village, on attaining puberty, are sold as a matter of routine etc. A resident of the village filed a complaint alleging that he is a father with marriageable daughter in the village and he is finding difficult in fixing marriage alliance to his daughter and also the reputation of the complainant's daughter is affected. The learned Judge referred to the publication and held that it is thus clear that the father of every girl who has attained puberty in the village, suffers in reputation as a result of the defamatory statement. The persons with daughters in Muramanda village are an identifiable class......The complainant is one of the affected persons with daughters in the village affected by the untrue imputation. Therefore the complainant falls within explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC and he is an aggrieved person Under Section 199 Cr P.C." Relying on this decision the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the residents of Kakileru village are identifiable group and since the imputation is made against both the youth and the elders of the village i.e. all the persons in the village the complainant being one of the residents of the village is affected by that imputation. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant on this aspect, and I find that the complainant is an aggrieved person.
10. As regards the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the news paper report and whether the complainant suffered any loss of reputation by such publication, it is a matter to be proved by evidence in the lower court.
11. The other point on which the petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings is that he is only Resident- Editor of the paper at Vijayawada and so he is not liable for defamation. The publication in question was made in the Vijayawada edition of the news paper which has got special supplement for West Godavari District. The allegation made against the petitioner in the complaint is that the 2nd accused who is the petitioner herein published news item without verifying the truth or otherwise of the report. The learned Counsel for the complainant has referred to the decision in S. Nihal Singh v. Shri Arjandas, 1983 Crimes 438. In that case the Delhi High Court held: "In the instant case the declaration printed at the bottom of the back page of the newspaper shows that the news paper had been printed and published for the proprietors Indian Express News Papers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd by S.K. Kohli, petitioner No. 5 and S. Nihal Singh and Prabhash Joshi are Editor-in-Chief and Resident Editor respectively of the news paper. Ex-facie a resident editor will be an associate of the Editor-in-Chief in the selection of news items and to that extent he is answerable on a charge of defamation." The question whether he has verified the correctness or otherwise of the report and whether he is entitled to any exceptions Under Section 499 are all matters which are to be decided by the trial court on evidence.
12. Therefore, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioner who is accused No. 2 in this case.
13. The petition is therefore dismissed.