Delhi District Court
Sh. Siddharth Rao vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 9 November, 2016
C.R. No. 57352/16 D.O.D.: 09.11.2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
C.R. No.: 57352/16 (Old No. 75/14)
Sh. Siddharth Rao
S/o Sh. Gajender Singh
R/o Cottage No. 9,
Oberoi Apartments,
Civil Lines, Delhi110054. ....Revisionist
Versus
1. The State (NCT of DELHI)
2. Sh. Chandan Mitra
Editor, "The Pioneer"
R/o H33A, Lane WIOC,
Sainik Farms, New Delhi
Also At:
2nd Floor, Link House,
3, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi110002.
3. Siddarth Misra,
Associate Editor, "The Pioneer"
R/o 1304, Satpura Tower,
Ghaziabad, UP.
Also At:
2nd Floor, Link House,
3, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi110002.
Siddharth Rao Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 1 of 10
C.R. No. 57352/16 D.O.D.: 09.11.2016
4. Rajesh Kumar
Reporter, "The Pioneer",
R/o C78, Giani Market,
Khazoori Khas, Bhajan Pura,
Delhi.
Also At:
2nd Floor, Link House,
3, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi110002.
5. CMYK Printech Ltd.
Through its Directors
And Sh. Chandan Mitra
2nd Floor, Link House,
3, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi110002.
6. Jagran Prakashan Ltd.
Through its Directors
And Shri Chandan Mitra
D210211, Sector63,
Noida (UP)
Also At:
2nd Floor, Link House,
3, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi110002. ....Respondents
Date of Institution : 06.09.2014
Date on which Order was reserved: 25.10.2016
Date on which Order pronounced : 09.11.2016
Siddharth Rao Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 2 of 10
C.R. No. 57352/16 D.O.D.: 09.11.2016
O R D E R:
1. The present revision petition takes exception to the order dated 05.02.2014 (hereinafter called the impugned order) passed by Ld. MM, Rohini Courts, Delhi, whereby complaint case bearing CC No. 178/1 titled as "Siddharath Rao vs. Chandan Mitra & Ors." U/s 200 read with Section 190(1) (a) read with Section 199(6) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable U/s 500/501/502/34 IPC filed by petitioner herein, has been dismissed.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the petitioner (hereinafter called the complainant for the sake of convenience) averred in complaint case that he is public servant holding post of Secretary in Vidhan Sabha. On 03.06.2011, news item was published in newspaper 'The Pioneer' alongwith photograph of the complainant. The contents of said news item lowered down the reputation of complainant in the society. The said news was also circulated through internet by website www.dailypioneer.com having circulation throughout the world. The said news item was got published with the intention to harm the reputation of complainant. Thus, the respondent nos. 2 to 6 being Editor, Associate Editor, Reporter, Printer and owner of said newspaper, are liable to be prosecuted as accused persons for offences punishable U/s 500/501/502/34 IPC. According to the case set up by complainant before Trial Court, imputations were made against him in the news item that he was a tainted assembly official appointed without following prevalent Government Rules and norms and he is a controversial Secretary of Delhi Assembly having used political patronage by Siddharth Rao Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 3 of 10 C.R. No. 57352/16 D.O.D.: 09.11.2016 manipulating the rules and regulations. It further claimed that complainant is UDC and his appointment was bad in law. The complainant had withheld the vital facts about his credentials. The respondents had published the news item without actually verifying the authenticity of those facts from government records and thus, the said news item was malicious and defamatory. After publication of said news item, complainant had also received phone calls from his acquaintance including his brotherinlaw and fatherinlaw who enquired from him about the said report. A legal notice dated 16.06.2011 was served upon respondents who also sent reply dated 04.07.2011 thereto. On 20.08.2011, another news item was published in their newspaper which was also defamatory in nature.
3. During pre summoning evidence, the complainant examined himself as CW1 and also examined two more witnesses namely Sh. Akhilesh Yadav as CW2 and Sh. O.K. Yadav as CW3. Thereafter, Ld. Trial Court issued directions to concerned SHO for conducting enquiry as stipulated U/s 202 Cr.P.C. and reports were accordingly filed before the Court after holding the said enquiry. After hearing the submissions made by complainant and keeping in view the material available before it, Trial Court did not find any ground to proceed against respondent nos. 2 to 6 and consequently, dismissed the complaint case vide impugned order, which is under challenge before this Court.
4. The impugned order has been assailed by complainant mainly on the grounds that Trial Court committed an error by taking recourse to Siddharth Rao Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 4 of 10 C.R. No. 57352/16 D.O.D.: 09.11.2016 exceptions of Section 499 IPC at the stage of summoning, in utter violation of the law of the land as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in judgments reported at AIR 1971 SC 1389, AIR 1981 SC 1514 and the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported at MANU/DE/0913/2008; the impugned order is patently illegal and Trial Court failed to appreciate the facts of the case and the evidence available before it in correct perspective.
5. While opening the arguments, Ld. Counsel of complainant referred to the alleged imputations made in the news item published in newspaper 'The Pioneer' as well as on their website and argued that those imputations, wherein complainant is referred as tainted official, are defamatory in nature. He challenged the finding given by Trial Court in the impugned order in sofaras it has been observed that contents of news item dated 03.06.2011 were not apparently wrong, by contending that it was not permissible for Trial Court to give such a finding without actually conducting the Trial after summoning the respondents as accused in this case and thus, same amounts to pre judging the matter. He also referred to relevant portion of para no. 8 of legal notice dated 16.06.2011 served upon those respondents as also to the corresponding reply of said para in their written reply dated 04.07.2011, in order to bring home his point that the said respondents have admitted their fault in the said reply and same shows that their act in publishing false news leveling reckless and defamatory allegations against the complainant, prima facie amount to offence of defamation punishable U/s 500 IPC. He further argued that it was for the Siddharth Rao Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 5 of 10 C.R. No. 57352/16 D.O.D.: 09.11.2016 respondents to raise their defence during trial that the imputations appearing in news item dated 03.06.2011, were made in good faith and it was not proper on the part of Trial Court to rely upon exceptions to Section 499 IPC while declining to summon them as accused persons in this case. He also referred to relevant documents appearing at page numbers 63, 67, 70, 74, etc. of the Paper Book in order to bring home his point that the complainant has been holding the post of Gazette Officer since prior to publication of news item dated 03.06.2011. Thus, it is a fit case where impugned order is liable to be set aside and respondent nos. 2 to 6 should be summoned as accused persons to face trial. In order to buttress his aforesaid submissions, he also relied upon the following judgments:
i. Balraj Khanna & Ors. Vs. Moti Ram, AIR 1971 SC 1389;
ii. U.P. Sunni Central Wakf Board Vs. Mohammed Alim Cheshti (dead) by his legal representatives & Ors., AIR 1971 SC 1396; iii. Sewakram Sobhani Vs. R.K. Karanjia Chief Editor, Weekly Blitz & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 1514;
iv. Jefrey J. Diermeler & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., (2010) 6 SCC 243;
v. Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. State, MANU/DE/0845/2009 (Crl. Rev. P. 16/2008;
vi. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. Vs. Mahavir Singhvi, MANU/DE/ 0913/2008;
vii. Arundhati Sapru vs. Yash Mehra, MANU/DE/4096/2013; & viii. Shamsher Singh Vs. H.S. Malik, 22(1982) DLT1.
6. Per contra, ld. Counsel of respondent nos. 2 to 5 herein, supported the impugned order by submitting that all the relevant facts and circumstances have been duly taken into consideration by Trial Court before Siddharth Rao Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 6 of 10 C.R. No. 57352/16 D.O.D.: 09.11.2016 passing the said order. He argued that in the news item published by said respondents, the complainant is nowhere referred to as corrupt and the contents of said news items are not defamatory at all. He urged that it is the duty of media to bring truth to the notice of public at large and what said respondents did was to publish the relevant facts, which were duly borne out from the record, in the form of news items published in newspaper and also put them on their website. He pointed out that CAG Audit Report, which is a public document, was available in the government record and show cause notice was also issued to the complainant in the year 2013. Thus, it cannot be said that the contents of news item in question were in any manner defamatory in nature. He further argued that Trial Court has not taken recourse to the exceptions of Section 499 IPC while passing the impugned order. Thus, the submissions made in this regard on behalf of complainant are not tenable in the eyes of law. He further submitted that the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity or impropriety in the impugned order and thus, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention, he had also relied upon the following judgments:
i. Vineet Jain Vs. NCT of Delhi & Ors., unreported judgment passed in Crl. M.C. No. 2111/2007, decided on 10.10.2011 by Delhi High Court and ii. Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia & Anr. Vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel & Ors., (2012) 10 SCC 517;
7. Ld. Additional PP appearing on behalf of respondent no.1/ State had argued that since State has nothing to do with the matter in question, Siddharth Rao Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 7 of 10 C.R. No. 57352/16 D.O.D.: 09.11.2016 appropriate order may be passed by the Court on the basis of material available on record.
8. I have already heard Sh. Ravinder Yadav, Adv. on behalf of complainant/ revisionist, Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Additional PP on behalf of respondent no. 1/ State and Sh. Subhash Gulati, Adv. on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 5. I have also gone through the material available on record including Trial Court record, the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides and the authorities cited at the bar.
9. The main ground on which the impugned order has been challenged by complainant before this Court, is that Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in considering the defence of respondents in the form of Exceptions to Section 499 IPC, even before issuing summons to them. For the said purpose, the complainant has also placed reliance upon abovenoted judgments. I have gone through the authorities cited on behalf of petitioner/complainant. There cannot be any dispute so far as proposition of law laid down/discussed in the said authorities. However, it is relevant to note that the said authorities are not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the petitioner / complainant has failed to show that Trial Court has taken recourse to any of the exceptions provided in Section 499 IPC while dismissing his complaint case. Thus, he cannot be allowed to derive any mileage from the cited judgments.
10. There is no substance in the next bone of contention raised on behalf of petitioner / complainant that Trial Court committed any error in Siddharth Rao Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 8 of 10 C.R. No. 57352/16 D.O.D.: 09.11.2016 taking into consideration the report of enquiry conducted by concerned SHO in pursuance of directions issued by Magistrate as stipulated by Section 202 Cr.P.C. The submission made by counsel of petitioner that no evidentiary value can be attached to the enquiry report submitted by SHO, is without any merit. In case, no value is to be attached to enquiry report as stipulated by Section 202 Cr.P.C., then what is the purpose of ordering for conducting such an enquiry. In case the aforesaid contention raised by counsel of petitioner is sustained then the very object of incorporating the provision contained in Section 202 Cr.P.C., would get frustrated. In the report of enquiry conducted U/s 202 Cr.P.C., it was mentioned that complainant was on deputation in Delhi Legislative Assembly. Alongwith said enquiry report, photocopies of certain documents were also placed before the Trial Court showing that matter was under investigation with Directorate of Vigilance, Government of Delhi with regard to utilization of sanctioned GPF amount by complainant. Show Cause Notice dated 14.03.2013 was also served upon complainant calling upon him to show as to why the services and appointment against non existent post of OSD to Speaker be not terminated. In the said Show Cause Notice, it was also claimed that there were no recruitment rules for the post of Secretary to Speaker and thus, no government servant from other Cadre could not appointed or deputed against the said post. The said show cause notice also recited that CAG Audit had also raised objection over his irregular appointment as revealed during audit for the period from April 1999 to March 2004 and the consent or approval of Siddharth Rao Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 9 of 10 C.R. No. 57352/16 D.O.D.: 09.11.2016 Competent Authority i.e. Lt. Governor was also not obtained in any of his appointments during the said period. Not only this, CAG report also contained reference that enquiry was pending against complainant in the Department of Directorate of Vigilance, Government of Delhi.
11. Moreover, in the unreported case of 'Vineet Jain Vs. NCT of Delhi' mentioned supra, which is also relied on on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 5, our own High Court, after referring to the judicial precedent on the point in issue, has held in para 23 of the said judgment that Chairman or the Managing Director of a company owning a newspaper, is neither the editor nor the printer, nor the publisher and therefore, no presumption can be drawn against the holder of these offices, even though they are, by reason of the office held by them, Incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or impropriety in the impugned order. Thus, there is no ground or reason to interfere in the impugned order, which is hereby sustained. Consequently, the revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this order to trial Court/Successor Court. File of revision petition be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court today (Vidya Prakash)
On 09.11.2016 Additional Sessions Judge04 (North)
Rohini Courts/Delhi
Siddharth Rao Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. Page 10 of 10