Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S Ushodaya Enterprises Pvt Ltd vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 27 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos: 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509,
510, 512, 513, 514 and 515 of 2025; 1199, 1200 of 2023; 317 of 2024
Crl.R.C.No.502 of 2025
Between:
1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, III FLOOR, CORPORATE
OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR,
HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512. (A1)
2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60 OCC.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,
ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A2)
3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION, UDAYA
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA
BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD. (A3 AND A4)
4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED
52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL
PRAKASAM DISTRICT. (A5)
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT
2
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2025
Between:
1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, III FLOOR, CORPORATE
OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR,
HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512. (A1)
2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60, OCC.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.
ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A2)
3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA
BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD. (A3 AND A4)
4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED
52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL,
PRAKASAM DISTRICT. (A5)
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District.
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.504 of 2025
Between:
1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,, REPRESENTED BY
MANAGING DIRECTOR III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI
FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512.
3
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60 OCC.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,
ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD.
3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA
BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD.
4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED
52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.505 of 2025
Between:
1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,, III FLOOR, CORPORATE
OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR,
HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512. (A1)
2. MR. CH. KIRAN,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60, OCC.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD ROAD
NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD.
3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA
BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD. (A3 AND A4)
4
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED
52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL,
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.506 of 2025
Between:
1. CH. KIRON, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60, OCC. MANAGING
DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., ROAD NO. 36,
JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A2)
2. MRS. CH. SAILAJA KIRAN,, W/O. MR. CH. KIRON, OCC. MANAGING
DIRECTOR, MARGADARSI PVT. LTD ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS,
HYDERABAD. (A3)
3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR AND PUBLISHER, EENADU
TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA
BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD. (A4)
4. MR. NANNAPUNENI VISWAPRASAD,, CHIEF OF THE NEWS
BUREAU, EENADU, C/O. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD
ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A6)
5. MR. NARASIMHA REDDY,, BUREAU CHIEF, HYDERABAD, EENADU,
C/O. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE
HILLS, HYDERABAD.
6. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED
52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
5
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL
PRAKASAM DISTRICT. (A8)
7. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,, III FLOOR, CORPORATE
OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR,
HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.507 of 2025
Between:
1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, REP BY MANAGING
DIRECTOR III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY,
ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY
DISTRICT - 501512.
2. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION, UDAYA
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA
BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD.
3. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED
52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District
6
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.508 of 2025
Between:
1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY,
ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY
DISTRICT - 501512.
2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60 OCC.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.
ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A3 AND A4)
3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA
BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD. (A5)
4. . MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU,
AGED 52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.509 of 2025
Between:
1. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 52,
THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
7
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District.
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.510 of 2025
Between:
1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,, III FLOOR, CORPORATE
OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR,
HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512.
2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60 OCC.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,
ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD.
3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA
BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD.
4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED
52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District
8
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.512 of 2025
Between:
1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY,
ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY
DISTRICT - 501512.
2. . MR. CH. KIRAN, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60 OCC.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,
ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A3 AND A4)
3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION, UDAYA
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA
BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD. (A5)
4. . MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU,
AGED 52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.513 of 2025
Between:
1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, REP BUY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY,
9
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY
DISTRICT - 501512. (A1)
2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60, OCC.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,
ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A2)
3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION, UDAYA
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA
BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD. (A3 ANDA4)
4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED
52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.514 of 2025
Between:
1. USHODAYA ENTEPRISES PVT LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY,
ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY
DISTRICT - 501512. (A2)
2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60 OCC.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.
ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A3 AND A4)
3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA
10
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA
BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD. (A5)
4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED
52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL,
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.515 of 2025
Between:
1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,, III FLOOR, CORPORATE
OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR,
HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512. (A1)
2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60, OCC.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD ROAD
NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD.
3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA
BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD.
4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED
52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
11
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.1199 of 2023
Between:
1. CH KIRAN, S/O CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. MANAGING
DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., ROAD NO. 36,
JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.1200 of 2023
Between:
1. M/S USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY,
ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY
501512
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT
12
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
Crl.R.C.No.317 of 2024
Between:
1. M NAGESHWARA RAO, EDITOR, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA
PRADESH EDITION, USHODAYA ENTERPRISESS PVT LTD, R/O
FLAT NO.303, URSINIA BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR,
VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD 500070
2. M.NAGESHWARA RAO,, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER EENADU
TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION, USHODAYA
ENTERPRISESS PVT LTD, R/O FLAT NO.303, URSINIA BLOCK,
GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD 500070
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Public
Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
...RESPONDENT
****
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 27.10.2025
13
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
_________________________
Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
14
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
* THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
+ CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos: 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509,
510, 512, 513, 514 and 515 of 2025; 1199, 1200 of 2023; 317 of 2024
% 27.10.2025
# Crl.R.C.No.502 of 2025
Between:
1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, III FLOOR, CORPORATE
OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR,
HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512. (A1)
2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60 OCC.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,
ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A2)
3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION, UDAYA
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA
BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD. (A3 AND A4)
4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED
52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL
PRAKASAM DISTRICT. (A5)
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT
15
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2025
Between:
1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, III FLOOR, CORPORATE
OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR,
HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512. (A1)
2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60, OCC.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.
ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A2)
3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA
BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD. (A3 AND A4)
4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED
52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL,
PRAKASAM DISTRICT. (A5)
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District.
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.504 of 2025
Between:
1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,, REPRESENTED BY
MANAGING DIRECTOR III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI
FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512.
16
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60 OCC.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,
ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD.
3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA
BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD.
4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED
52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.505 of 2025
Between:
1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,, III FLOOR, CORPORATE
OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR,
HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512. (A1)
2. MR. CH. KIRAN,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60, OCC.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD ROAD
NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD.
3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA
BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD. (A3 AND A4)
17
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED
52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL,
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.506 of 2025
Between:
1. CH. KIRON, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60, OCC. MANAGING
DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., ROAD NO. 36,
JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A2)
2. MRS. CH. SAILAJA KIRAN,, W/O. MR. CH. KIRON, OCC. MANAGING
DIRECTOR, MARGADARSI PVT. LTD ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS,
HYDERABAD. (A3)
3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR AND PUBLISHER, EENADU
TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA
BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD. (A4)
4. MR. NANNAPUNENI VISWAPRASAD,, CHIEF OF THE NEWS
BUREAU, EENADU, C/O. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD
ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A6)
5. MR. NARASIMHA REDDY,, BUREAU CHIEF, HYDERABAD, EENADU,
C/O. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE
HILLS, HYDERABAD.
6. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED
52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
18
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL
PRAKASAM DISTRICT. (A8)
7. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,, III FLOOR, CORPORATE
OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR,
HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.507 of 2025
Between:
1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, REP BY MANAGING
DIRECTOR III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY,
ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY
DISTRICT - 501512.
2. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION, UDAYA
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA
BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD.
3. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED
52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District
19
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.508 of 2025
Between:
1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY,
ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY
DISTRICT - 501512.
2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60 OCC.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.
ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A3 AND A4)
3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA
BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD. (A5)
4. . MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU,
AGED 52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.509 of 2025
Between:
1. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 52,
THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
20
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District.
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.510 of 2025
Between:
1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,, III FLOOR, CORPORATE
OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR,
HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512.
2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60 OCC.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,
ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD.
3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA
BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD.
4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED
52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT
21
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
Crl.R.C.No.512 of 2025
Between:
1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY,
ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY
DISTRICT - 501512.
2. . MR. CH. KIRAN, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60 OCC.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,
ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A3 AND A4)
3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION, UDAYA
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA
BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD. (A5)
4. . MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU,
AGED 52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.513 of 2025
Between:
1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, REP BUY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY,
ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY
DISTRICT - 501512. (A1)
22
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60, OCC.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,
ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A2)
3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION, UDAYA
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA
BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD. (A3 ANDA4)
4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED
52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.514 of 2025
Between:
1. USHODAYA ENTEPRISES PVT LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY,
ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY
DISTRICT - 501512. (A2)
2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60 OCC.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.
ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A3 AND A4)
3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA
23
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD. (A5)
4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED
52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL,
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.515 of 2025
Between:
1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,, III FLOOR, CORPORATE
OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR,
HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512. (A1)
2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60, OCC.
MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD ROAD
NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD.
3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA
ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA
BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD.
4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED
52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O.
CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL
PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
24
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.1199 of 2023
Between:
1. CH KIRAN, S/O CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. MANAGING
DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., ROAD NO. 36,
JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT
Crl.R.C.No.1200 of 2023
Between:
1. M/S USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY,
ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY
501512
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Guntur District
...RESPONDENT
25
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
Crl.R.C.No.317 of 2024
Between:
1. M NAGESHWARA RAO, EDITOR, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA
PRADESH EDITION, USHODAYA ENTERPRISESS PVT LTD, R/O
FLAT NO.303, URSINIA BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR,
VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD 500070
2. M.NAGESHWARA RAO,, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER EENADU
TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION, USHODAYA
ENTERPRISESS PVT LTD, R/O FLAT NO.303, URSINIA BLOCK,
GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM,
HYDERABAD 500070
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Public
Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
...RESPONDENT
! Counsel for the Petitioners : P.Sai Surya Teja
^Counsel for the Respondent : Neelotpal Ganji
< Gist:
The Order of the Court was delivered by
Dr. Justice Y.Lakshmana Rao :-- For the convenience of exposition,
this order is divided into the following parts :--
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
B. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS
C. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE
26
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
D. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION
E. ANALYSIS
F. CONCLUSION
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2017) 14 SCC 809
2. (1977) 4 SCC 551
3. 1965 SCC OnLine All 337
4. 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 826
5. 1999 (6) SCC 667
6. (2016) 7 SCC 221
7. (2015) 5 SCC 1
8. AIR 1957 SC 620
9. AIR 1962 SC 955
10. (1989) 2 SCC 574
11. 1965 SCC Online SC 256
12. (1985) 1 SCC 641
13. (1994) 6 SCC 632
14. (2015) 6 SCC 158
15. (2018) 6 SCC 676
16. (2015) 4 SCC 609
17. (2014) 14 SCC 638
18. (2013) 2 SCC 435
27
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
19. (2017) 3 SCC 528
20. (2013) 2 SCC 488
21. (2015) 12 SCC 420
22. (1998) 5 SCC 749
23. Crl.M.C.No.2792/2017 dated 29.03.2023
24. (1972) 1 SCC 450
25. 1993 Supp (1) SCC 499
26. 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 1023
27. (2009) 1 SCC 101
28
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos: 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509,
510, 512, 513, 514 and 515 of 2025; 1199, 1200 of 2023; 317 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
These Criminal Revision Cases (sixteen in number) filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 1 are heard and disposed of by way of this common order, as they pertain to identical offences involving markedly the same set of accused, all result from a connected factual condition.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. Criminal Revision Case No.502 of 2025 is treated as the lead matter, as the factual matrix and legal issues involved in all connected cases are substantially same, occurring from a common set of circumstances.
3. Criminal Revision Case No.502 of 2025 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 06.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.7 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The case revolves around two articles published in the Telugu daily "Eenadu", the first on 10.02.2023, which alleged that the death of Savara Bariki, aged 86, was due to starvation caused by the stoppage of pension payments. Immediately, on the same day i.e., on 10.02.2023 Government issued an official rejoinder disputing these claims and clarifying that relief measures, including rice distribution, were 1 the BNSS 29 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 provided. In spite of this clarification, a second article reiterating and intensifying the allegations appeared in "Eenadu" on 11.02.2023, forming the central factual basis for the litigation.
4. Criminal Revision Case No.503 of 2025 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2023 passed in C.C.No.17 of 2023 on the file of the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix pertains to the publication of a purportedly libelous article in the main edition of Eenadu Telugu Daily on 09.03.2023, imputing corruption and impropriety in government coal procurement, which elicited an official rejoinder from the authorities on the same date. In spite of governmental refutation and issuance of a legal notice dated 16.03.2023 demanding unconditional apology and rectification, the accused allegedly persisted in disseminating defamatory material, thereby precipitating the institution of the present criminal complaint within the prescribed limitation period.
5. Criminal Revision Case No.504 of 2025 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 06.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.8 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix encapsulates the publication of an allegedly libelous and defamatory article titled in the Eenadu Telugu Daily on 07.03.2023, wherein imputations of unlawful conduct and corruption were ascribed to public functionaries. Following the issuance of a formal governmental clarification, a legal notice dated 15.03.2023 30 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 demanded an unconditional apology from the accused for the per se defamatory publication, the non-compliance with said notice precipitated the initiation of criminal proceedings, duly within the statutory limitation period.
6. Criminal Revision Case No.505 of 2025 has been preferred aggrieved by the order dated 06.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.9 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual substratum concerns the publication of an allegedly scurrilous and defamatory article in the Eenadu Telugu Daily on 04.01.2023, imputing blame to governmental authorities for grievous injuries suffered by a citizen. Consequent to the dissemination of said imputations, a statutory legal notice dated 09.02.2023 was issued demanding an unconditional public apology and rejoinder, which was met with non-
compliance, thereby prompting the lodging of criminal proceedings within the statutorily prescribed limitation period.
7. Criminal Revision Case No.506 of 2025 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 07.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.10 of 2023 on the file of the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix of the case reveals that on 13.04.2023, a defamatory and vituperative news article was published in the Eenadu Telugu Daily, Guntur Edition, allegedly maligning the Andhra Pradesh Crime Investigation Department (CID) while discharging its official duties. Consequent thereto, upon obtaining statutory 31 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 sanction vide G.O.Rt.No.742, Home (Legal-II) Department, dated 03.07.2023, the Public Prosecutor, State of Andhra Pradesh, instituted the complaint.
8. Criminal Revision Case No.507 of 2025 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2023 passed in C.C.No.16 of 2023 on the file of the learned XII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix pertains to the publication of a libelous and scandalous article in the Eenadu Telugu Daily on 24.06.2023, alleging undue favouritism and financial impropriety by Shirdi Sai Electricals in government contract awards. After issuance of a legal notice dated 05.07.2023 demanding an unconditional apology and rejoinder, which was met with evasive response and non- compliance, the complaint was instituted within the statutory limitation period, asserting criminal conspiracy and defamation.
9. Criminal Revision Case No.508 of 2025 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.6 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix involves the publication of a per se defamatory article in the Eenadu Telugu Daily on 29.01.2023, falsely alleging financial impropriety in the tender process for Jagananna Vidya Kanuka. The Government issued a factual rejoinder on 30.01.2023 rebutting these claims and subsequently served a legal notice dated 13.02.2023 demanding an unconditional apology, which was disregarded, leading to the initiation of criminal proceedings.
32
Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025
10. Criminal Revision Case No.509 of 2025 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10.08.2023 passed in C.C.No.15 of 2023 on the file of the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix involves the publication of a per se defamatory article in the Eenadu Telugu Daily on 16.04.2023, falsely alleging poor quality and improper distribution of school shoes under the Jagananna Vidya Kanuka scheme. The Government issued a factual rejoinder on 17.04.2023 refuting these claims and, after non-compliance with a legal notice dated 05.05.2023 demanding an unconditional apology, criminal proceedings were initiated.
11. Criminal Revision Case No.510 of 2025 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 22.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.12 of 2023 on the file of the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix concerns the publication of a libelous article in the Eenadu Telugu Daily on 20.01.2023, falsely alleging non-procurement of paddy and mismanagement in the procurement process. A governmental rejoinder was issued on 21.01.2023 clarifying the true facts, followed by a legal notice dated 09.02.2023 demanding an unconditional apology, which was not complied with, leading to the initiation of criminal proceedings.
12. Criminal Revision Case No.512 of 2025 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2023 passed in C.C.No.26 of 2023 on the file of the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual 33 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 matrix concerns the publication of a libelous article in the Eenadu Telugu Daily dated 18.07.2023, which alleged unauthorized construction activities, exorbitant loans, and favouritism toward MEIL in the Polavaram Project, thereby maligning the government and its officials. A legal notice dated 16.08.2023 demanded an unconditional apology and rejoinder, which was not complied with, resulting in the initiation of criminal proceedings.
13. Criminal Revision Case No.513 of 2025 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2023 passed in C.C.No.21 of 2023 on the file of the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix concerns the publication of a libelous article in the Eenadu Telugu Daily on 12.05.2023, alleging undue favouritism, financial irregularities, and delayed construction in the Polavaram Project. The Government issued a rejoinder on the same day, and legal notice dated 26.07.2023 demanding an unconditional apology and corrective publication, which was not complied with, prompting initiation of criminal proceedings.
14. Criminal Revision Case No.514 of 2025 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 09.02.2024 passed in C.C.No.3 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix concerns the publication of a libelous and defamatory article in the Eenadu Telugu Daily on 23.07.2023, falsely alleging inadequate funding and hardships faced by cooking staff under the Jagananna Gorumudda mid-day meal scheme. 34
Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 Despite the Government issuing a factual rejoinder and legal notice demanding an unconditional apology, the accused failed to comply, leading to prosecution initiated within the statutory limitation period.
15. Criminal Revision Case No.515 of 2025 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 21.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.11 of 2023 on the file of the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix involves the publication of a libelous and defamatory article in the Eenadu Telugu Daily on 22.02.2023, falsely alleging police brutality and torture of TDP Spokesperson Kommareddy Pattabhiram during his arrest in Gannavaram. A governmental rejoinder clarifying the facts was issued on 23.02.2023, followed by a legal notice dated 07.03.2023 demanding an unconditional apology, which was not complied with, leading to the initiation of criminal proceedings.
16. Criminal Revision Case No.1199 of 2023 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10.08.2023 passed in C.C.No.15 of 2023 on the file of the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix pertains to the publication of a libelous and defamatory article in the Eenadu Telugu Daily on 16.04.2023, alleging defective distribution of school shoes under the Jagananna Vidya Kanuka scheme. The Government issued a rejoinder on 17.04.2023 rebutting the allegations and subsequently served a legal notice dated 05.05.2023 demanding an unconditional apology, which remained unheeded, prompting the institution of criminal proceedings. 35
Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025
17. Criminal Revision Case No.1200 of 2023 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10.08.2023 passed in C.C.No.15 of 2023 on the file of the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix concerns the publication of a per se defamatory article in the Eenadu Telugu Daily on 16.04.2023, falsely alleging poor quality and improper sizing of shoes distributed under the Jagananna Vidya Kanuka scheme. The Government issued a rejoinder on 17.04.2023 refuting the allegations and subsequently served a legal notice on 05.05.2023 demanding an unconditional apology, which was not complied with, thereby prompting the initiation of criminal proceedings.
18. Criminal Revision Case No.317 of 2024 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10.08.2023 passed in C.C.No.15 of 2023 on the file of the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix concerns the publication of a libelous article in the Eenadu Telugu Daily on 16.04.2023, which falsely alleged defective distribution of shoes under the Jagananna Vidya Kanuka scheme. The Government issued a rejoinder on 17.04.2023 refuting these claims and subsequently served a legal notice dated 05.05.2023 demanding an unconditional apology, which was not complied with, resulting in the initiation of criminal proceedings.
19. All the above mentioned learned courts in which the complaints are pending are referred to 'the learned Trial Courts'.
36
Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS:
20. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the Revision, submits that the impugned orders of taking cognizance of offences passed by 'the Trial Courts' vitiated by manifest legal infirmities, being contrary to settled principles of law, devoid of evidentiary foundation, and repugnant to the probabilities emerging from the record. The impugned orders suffer from non-application of mind and warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
21. It is submitted that 'the learned Trial Courts' concerned, while taking cognizance of offences under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of 'the I.P.C.,' failed to advert to the foundational requirement of mens rea, namely the deliberate intention to cause harm to the reputation of the complainant. In the absence of any averment or material indicative of such intent, the invocation of Section 499 of 'the I.P.C.,' is legally untenable. The complaints are conspicuously silent on any actual injury to reputation, thereby rendering the cognizance unsustainable.
22. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the factual matrix of the cases squarely attracts multiple exceptions enumerated under Section 499 of 'the I.P.C.,' more particularly the First, Second, Third, and Tenth Exceptions. The publication in question was made in good faith, in public interest, and in pursuit of truth, thereby falling outside the purview of criminal 37 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 defamation. 'The learned Trial Courts' failed to undertake the requisite judicial scrutiny to ascertain the applicability of these exceptions prior to taking cognizance. It is further submitted that the complaints and the accompanying materials do not disclose a prima facie case under the alleged penal provisions.
The essential ingredients of the offences such as malice, intent to defame, and resultant public injury are conspicuously absent. 'The learned Trial Courts' ought to have exercised judicial restraint and declined cognizance in the absence of such foundational elements.
23. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the procedure prescribed under Sections 200 and 202 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' has been flagrantly violated. 'The Trial Courts' concerned proceeded to take cognizance without examining the complainant and witnesses on oath, which is a mandatory procedural safeguard. Moreover, since the some of the petitioners/Accused reside beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, the postponement of issuance of process under Section 202 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' was imperative. The failure to conduct an inquiry or investigation in such circumstances renders the orders void ab initio. The impugned orders are further assailed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The Petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of being heard prior to the passing of the cognizance order, thereby infringing their fundamental right to procedural fairness guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 38
Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025
24. It is submitted that the cognizance has been taken in a mechanical and perfunctory manner, without any judicial application of mind to the question whether the allegations, even if accepted at face value, constitute an offence under law. 'The Trial Courts' concerned failed to assess whether the complaint, read in conjunction with the preliminary inquiry, discloses any legal culpability warranting issuance of process. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that Petitioners have neither authored nor published the article dated 10.02.2023 in Eenadu newspaper. The complaint fails to attribute any specific role or actus reus to the petitioners, and the allegations are vague, omnibus, and bereft of particulars. The absence of individualised imputation militates against the very foundation of criminal liability.
25. Even assuming arguendo that the Petitioners were connected to the publications, the articles in question were a truthful and factual narration of events concerning public welfare. The communication dated 14.02.2023 from the Special Chief Secretary, the legal notice dated 17.03.2023 issued by the Public Prosecutor, and the purported sanction under Section 199(4)(b) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' collectively establish that the deceased Savara Bariki was denied pension due to biometric failure and was alternatively provided rice. These facts corroborate the publication and negate any element of malice or falsity. The Petitioners submit that the complainant lacks locus standi to initiate the present proceedings, as no identifiable individual has been defamed. The complaints 39 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 are bereft of any specific allegation as to which statements in the publications are defamatory, how they impair the reputation of the Government, and which Petitioner is responsible for such imputation. It is further submitted that the Petitioner No.1, being a media entity, was exercising its constitutionally protected right under Article 19(1)(a) to report on matters of public interest and governance. The publications do not transgress the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), and the present prosecution is a colourable exercise aimed at stifling free speech.
26. The sanctions accorded under Section 199(2) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' are legally unsustainable, having been granted without due application of mind and in contravention of statutory requirements. The complaints fail to satisfy the threshold requirement of defamation of the State, and the sanctions are liable to be quashed as an abuse of process. The Petitioners submit that the complaints are actuated by malice and is intended to muzzle legitimate criticism of public policy and governance. It is well settled that the right to comment on public affairs encompasses the right to criticise public officials and their actions. The present proceedings are an affront to democratic discourse and constitutional freedoms. It is further submitted that governmental entities, local authorities, and institutions exercising sovereign functions are precluded from initiating defamation proceedings under Section 499 of 'the I.P.C.,' as such actions are barred by law and contrary to public policy. 40
Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025
27. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submits that continuation of proceedings in these calendar cases, pending adjudication of the present revision, would cause irreparable harm, prejudice, and hardship. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the Petitioners, and the interests of justice warrant immediate intervention by this Court. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE:
28. On the other hand, Mr. Neelotpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would argue that the accused persons who stand arraigned for having engaged in a concerted and premeditated course of conduct that squarely attracts penal liability under Sections 500, 501, and 502 read with Section 120-B of 'the I.P.C.' The gravamen of the complaints pertaining to the publication of two successive articles in the Telugu Daily "Eenadu," dated 10.02.2023 and 11.02.2023 respectively, which are demonstrably defamatory per se, bereft of factual substratum, and calculated to scandalize and vilify the Government of Andhra Pradesh and its officers in the estimation of the public.
29. It is the prosecution's case that Accused No.1, the corporate entity owning and publishing "Eenadu," acting through Accused No.2, its Managing Director, has orchestrated and supervised the editorial process culminating in the impugned publications. Accused Nos. 3 to 5, being the Printer & Publisher, Editor, and Bureau Chief respectively, have actively participated in the selection, approval, and dissemination of the defamatory content, thereby rendering 41 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 themselves jointly and severally liable under the law. The article dated 10.02.2023, captioned " ంఛ ం .. ఆక చం ం !," imputes that the death of one Savara Bariki, aged 86, was occasioned by starvation due to cessation of pension payments. This assertion is not only factually incorrect but also made with reckless disregard for the truth and in suppression of contemporaneous and verifiable facts, including the provision of rice through the Public Distribution System and special relief measures undertaken by the State. Statements of the deceased's nephew and the attending physician unequivocally attribute the demise to age-related ailments, thereby negating the starvation narrative.
30. In spite of issuance of a rejoinder by the Government on 10.02.2023 clarifying the factual matrix, the accused persons, in brazen defiance of journalistic ethics and statutory obligations, proceeded to publish a follow-up article on 11.02.2023 under the caption " ంఛ ఇవ ద కం ల ?"
thereby compounding the defamatory sting and exhibiting contumacious disregard for truth and official clarification. The impugned publications fail to satisfy any of the statutory exceptions enumerated under Section 499 of 'the I.P.C.' They cannot be shielded under the doctrine of fair comment or public interest reportage, as the same were published without reasonable verification, in a sensationalized manner, and with manifest malice. The deliberate use of 42 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 provocative captions and suppression of exculpatory facts evinces a culpable mens rea and a concerted intent to defame.
31. The prosecution further submits that the distinct roles and responsibilities of the accused persons ranging from editorial oversight to publication and dissemination establish their complicity and common intention in the commission of the offence. The law is well settled that every person who authorizes, concurs in, or facilitates the publication of defamatory matter is equally liable. The acts of the accused attract the rigors of Section 499 of 'the I.P.C.,' constituting criminal conspiracy to defame, and are punishable under Sections 500 (defamation), 501 (printing defamatory matter), and 502 (sale of defamatory matter). The issuance of a statutory legal notice dated 17.03.2023 demanding an unconditional apology and corrective publication has elicited no compliance, thereby aggravated the defamatory conduct and demonstrated contumacy. The cause of action arose on 10.02.2023 and continues in view of the subsequent publication and non-compliance with lawful demands. The complaint has been instituted within the period of limitation prescribed under law and is, therefore, legally tenable.
32. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the learned Trial Court had rightly appreciated the material available. There was no flagrant miscarriage of justice. There were no perverse findings. There was no irregularity let alone material irregularity. The order impugned is not vitiated by 43 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 manifest error of law or procedure which had resulted in miscarriage of justice. The impugned order doesn't suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Hence, it is urged to dismiss these Criminal Revision Cases.
33. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:
34. Now the point for consideration is:
"Whether the impugned orders of taking cognizance of offences are correct, legal, and proper with respect to taking cognizance of the alleged offences, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?"
35. In this regard, the following table will depict the date and nature of publication of alleged defamatory articles, the relevant Government Orders sanctioning the prosecution with relevant dates and details of the complaints, Courts and the dates of taking cognizance.
GOVERNMENT DETAILS OF
ALLEGED
ORDER COMPLAINANT
Sl. DEFAMATORY
CASE NO. SANCTIONING AND DATE
NO. ARTICLES
PROSECUTION AND TAKING
PUBLISHED
AND DATE COGNIZANCE
CC.No.7 of 2023
Pension gone 06-07-2023 in
Crl.R.C.No. hunger has taken G.O.Rt.No.290 the Court of the
1.
502 of 2025 away the life. 22-05-2023 Principal
(10-02-2023) Sessions Judge,
Guntur
CC.No.17 of
The coal tender 2023
Crl.R.C.No. G.O.Rt.No.75
2. goes to Adani. 30-08-2023 in
503 of 2025 19-07-2023
(09-03-2023) the Court of the II
Additional District
44
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
& Sessions
Judge, Guntur
CC.No.8 of 2023
06-07-2023 in
Crl.R.C.No. The diesel mafia. G.O.Rt.No.151 the Court of the
3.
504 of 2025 (07-03-2023) 01-06-2023 Principal District
& Sessions
Judge, Guntur
A senior citizen
sustained the CC.No.9 of 2023
amputation of her 06-07-2023 in
Crl.R.C.No. leg as a G.O.Rt.No.171 the Court of the
4.
505 of 2025 consequence of 11-04-2023 Principal District
the chief ministers & Sessions
meeting. (04-01- Judge, Guntur
2023)
CC.No.10 of
2023
Huge conspiracy
07-07-2023 in
Crl.R.C.No. against G.O.Rt.No.746
5. the Court of the I
506 of 2025 Margadarsi. 03-07-2023
Additional District
(13-04-2023)
& Sessions
Judge, Guntur
CC.No.16 of
Jagan and
2023
Vishweshwar
30-08-2023 in
Reddy are alleged
Crl.R.C.No. G.O.Rt.No.88 the Court of the
6. to have amassed
507 of 2025 16-08-2023 XII Additional
₹92,000 crores in
District &
combined assets.
Sessions Judge,
(24-06-2023)
Guntur
CC.No.6 of 2023
They bought kits... 04-07-2023 in
Crl.R.C.No. and embezzled G.O.Ms.No.35 the Court of the
7.
508 of 2025 crores. 31-03-2023 Principal District
(29-01-2023) & Sessions
Judge, Guntur
CC.No.15 of
Crl.R.C.Nos. The Vidyakanuka
2023
1200 &1199 shoes are not
G.O.Rt.No.119 in the Court of
8. of 2023 suitable for
04-07-2023 the IV Additional
509 of 2025 students.
District &
317 of 2024 (16-04-2023)
Sessions Judge,
45
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
Guntur
10-08-2023
CC.No.12 of
2023
Statements gone to
21-07-2023 in
Crl.R.C.No. the winds... grains G.O.Rt.No.10
9. the Court of the
510 of 2025 eaten by rats. 31-03-2023
III Additional
(20-01-2023)
Sessions Judge,
Guntur
Payments totalling
CC.No.26 of
Rs 739 crores and
2023
22 paise were
15-12-2023 in
disbursed to the
Crl.R.C.No. G.O.Rt.No.453 the Court of the
10. contractor despite
512 of 2025 16-10-2023 III Additional
non-fulfilment of
District &
the contractual
Sessions Judge,
obligations.
Guntur
(18-07-2023)
CC.No.21 of
2023
Polavaram... in the Court of
Crl.R.C.No. failure of a global G.O.Rt.No.381 the I Additional
11.
513 of 2025 scale. 28-08-2023 District &
(12-05-2023) Sessions Judge,
Guntur
07-11-2023
CC.No.3 of 2024
The midday meal in the Court of
exists only in the II Additional
Crl.R.C.No. G.O.Rt.No.22
12. words, not in District &
514 of 2025 11-01-2024
reality. Sessions Judge,
(23-07-2023) Guntur
09-02-2024
CC.No.11 of
2023
Pattabi was beaten 21-07-2023 in
Crl.R.C.No. G.O.Rt.No.466
13. up. the Court of the II
515 of 2025 02-05-2023
(22-02-2023) Additional District
& Sessions
Judge, Guntur
46
Dr.YLR,J
Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch
27.10.2025
ANALYSIS:
36. Regarding maintainability of revision, the following important two judgments, relied on by the learned Senior Counsel, throw a light on the point. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI2, at paragraph Nos.16 to 18, 21 and 22 held as under:
"16. There are three categories of orders that a court can pass--final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction--that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order.
17. The concept of an intermediate order first found mention in Amar Nath v. State of Haryana [Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137] in which case the interpretation and impact of Section 397(2) CrPC came up for consideration. This decision is important for two reasons. Firstly, it gives the historical reason for the enactment of Section 397(2) CrPC and secondly, considering that historical background, it gives a justification for a restrictive meaning to Section 482 CrPC.
18. As far as the historical background is concerned, it was pointed out that the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 and the 1955 Amendment gave wide powers to the High Court to interfere with orders passed in criminal cases by the subordinate courts. These wide powers were restricted by the High Court and this Court, as matter of prudence and not as a matter of law, to an order that "suffered from any error of law or any legal infirmity causing injustice or prejudice to the accused or was manifestly foolish or perverse" (Amar Nath case [Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137 ] , SCC p. 140, para 4). This led to the courts being flooded with cases challenging all kinds of orders and thereby delaying prosecution of a case to the detriment of an accused person.
21. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551 by contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory order. This decision lays down the principle that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come to mind--an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect of discharging the accused person and resulting in a final order 2 (2017) 14 SCC 809 47 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceedings would continue.
22. The view expressed in Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137 and Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 was followed in K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat (2000) 6 SCC 195 wherein a revision petition was filed challenging the taking of cognizance and issuance of a process. It was said: 201, para 11) "11. ... It is now well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as for Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 137, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551, V.C. Shukla v. State 1980 Supp SCC 92 and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam (1999) 3 SCC 134. The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objection raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order was revisable."
(emphasis supplied)"
37. Facts in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra 3, are that an appeal by special leave challenged the Bombay High Court's rejection of the appellant's revision under Section 397(1) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' on the ground of non- maintainability under Section 397(2) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' The case arose from a 1974 press conference where the appellant allegedly defamed A.R.Antulay, then Law Minister of Maharashtra, leading to prosecution under Section 500 of 'the I.P.C.' The Sessions Court took cognizance directly under Section 199(2) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' and after framing charges, the appellant's revision was dismissed as barred by Section 397(2). The Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the scope of the High Court's revisional and inherent powers under Sections 397 and 482, holding that while revisional powers cannot be exercised in 3 (1977) 4 SCC 551 48 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 respect of interlocutory orders, the inherent power remains unaffected to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. The Court emphasized that such inherent jurisdiction should be used sparingly, for example, to quash proceedings instituted illegally or without jurisdiction. It further observed that denying an accused any remedy against manifestly illegal proceedings would be unjust, and therefore, the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 must remain available to ensure fairness and prevent miscarriage of justice.
38. Indeed, the impugned orders of taking cognizance of offences and summoning the Petitioners/Accused are intermediate in nature as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amar Nath, Madhu Limaye and Girish Kumar Suneja supra. Hence, it is held that these Criminal Revision Cases are maintainable.
39. After examining the submissions and the record, the Court finds that the learned Trial Court's cognizance against the Petitioners is legally flawed. Defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of 'the I.P.C.,' requires intent to harm reputation, which is absent here, as the complaint contains no specific defamatory statements or evidence of malice. The impugned publication, supported by official State communications on pension delays and welfare provisions, merely reported public welfare issues without animus. The Petitioners' reliance on the statutory exceptions under Section 499 of 'the I.P.C.,' relating to public good, conduct of public servants, reporting of public matters, 49 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 and good-faith caution is prima facie valid. The learned Sessions Judge's failure to consider these exceptions shows non-application of mind.
40. The definition in Section 11 of 'the I.P.C.,' as that in the General Clauses Act, 18974 uses the word "includes", which, it is well known indicates that the definition is not intended to be exhaustive. In Jabbar v. State5 at paragraph No.15 it is held that the term "person" has not been defined in a technical or narrow sense in 'the I.P.C.' Sec. 11 of 'the I.P.C.,' defines it in the same way as the term "person" as defined in Sec. 3(42) of 'the Act.' At paragraph No.16, in Jabbar supra, it is further held that this is hardly a definition. It seems to be only an indication of the intention of the legislature to use the word "person" in a wide sense to include even artificial persons. The word person is said to be derived from "persona" which stood for the mask worn by an actor on the stage amongst the ancient Greeks and Romans. In law it implies the juristic personification of an entity which may or may not be an animated being. The use of the word "includes" also indicates that the term defined retains its ordinary meaning but is enlarged to include matters which the ordinary would not include. Definition is inclusive in nature.
41. In Chief Education Officer, Salem v. K.S. Palanichamy 6, at paragraph No.12 it is held that the term 'person' has been defined in Section 11 of 'the 4 the Act 5 1965 SCC OnLine All 337 6 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 826 50 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 I.P.C.,' and the same is in pari materia with Section 3(42) of 'the Act.' Obviously, the definition is inclusive. As per the definition, the word 'person' includes any Company or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not. While interpreting these provisions, the Courts have held that the State and its instrumentalities are juristic persons-vide judgment in Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India7.
42. Further, to constitute defamation, as envisaged in Section 499 of 'the I.P.C.,' either the imputation should have been intended to harm the reputation of such person or at least the person making the said imputation should have had knowledge or reasons to believe that the same will harm the reputation of the other. This provision came to be interpreted on several occasions by various High Courts as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein, consistently, the Courts have taken the view that one of the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 499 of 'the I.P.C.,' is "mens rea".
43. Applying the above principles, if we analyse the definition of defamation in Section 499 of 'the I.P.C.,' it will be crystal clear that it is an offence involving personal malicious intent, which is evident from the fact that one of the essential ingredients is either intention to harm or knowledge or reasons to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the other. 7 1999 (6) SCC 667 51 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025
44. In Indian law, defamation is codified under Sections 499 and 500 of 'the I.P.C.' Section 499 of 'the I.P.C.,' outlines defamation as any spoken or written words or visible representations made with the intention to harm the reputation of a "person." Section 499 of 'the I.P.C.,' defines defamation with four explanations and ten exceptions. The penal provision is under Section 500 of 'the I.P.C.,' for punishment for defamation. Section 501 of 'the I.P.C.,' printing or engraving the matter known to be defamatory, Section 502 of 'the I.P.C.,' sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter. Section 499 of 'the I.P.C.,' speaks of a person whose reputation, by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representation, make or publishes any imputations concerning any person intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that imputation will harm the reputation of such person is said to defame that person, excepted in the exceptions 1 to 10 of Section 499 of 'the I.P.C.'
45. The term "person" has been interpreted to include individuals, associations, and identifiable institutions. However, the government, as an abstract sovereign entity, is not considered a "person" for the purposes of defamation unless the statement targets specific departments or officials with imputations of misconduct. Explanation 2 to Section 499 explicitly protects fair criticism of public servants in the discharge of their public functions, provided it is made in good faith. Thus, generalized criticism of the government such as 52 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 calling it inefficient or corrupt does not ordinarily attract criminal defamation unless it is demonstrably false and malicious.
46. The Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), which includes the freedom of the press. This right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), including defamation. The press, often referred to as the Fourth Estate, plays a vital role in democracy by scrutinizing public institutions and disseminating information.
47. The constitutionality of criminal defamation was challenged in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India8, wherein the Supreme Court upheld Sections 499 and 500 of 'the I.P.C.' The Court emphasized that the right to reputation is a facet of Article 21, Right to Life and Personal Liberty and must be balanced against the right to free speech. However, the judgment also clarified that criticism of government functioning, even if harsh, cannot be equated with defamation unless it is shown to be malicious and false. It is observed that defamation cannot be used as a political tool, and that calling a government inefficient or unfit does not attract criminal liability. This ruling is pivotal in protecting media entities from frivolous defamation suits while preserving the dignity of individuals.
8 (2016) 7 SCC 221 53 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025
48. In Subramanian Swamy supra at paragraph No. 150 it was observed that the excerpt underscores that while Shreya Singhal v. Union of India9 emphasized the need for narrowly tailored restrictions on free speech, criminal defamation does not fall within that narrow scope. The term "defamation" in Article 19(2) has existed since the inception of the Constitution and includes criminal defamation, which is a pre-constitutional law. Attempts to interpret defamation as requiring a nexus with public disorder are inconsistent with constitutional principles. Precedents like Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P.,10 and Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar 11 pertain to different offences and cannot be extended to redefine defamation. Furthermore, reliance on S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram 12 must be contextualized, as that case dealt with censorship of a film addressing caste-based reservation, not defamation, and its observations were specific to the facts and sensitivities involved.
49. It was further observed that in a democratic society, freedom of expression is paramount and cannot be curtailed merely due to dissent or criticism of policies or opinions, as such expressions do not amount to defamation. It clarified that disapproval alone does not constitute criminal defamation and emphasized the need to understand its legal contours accurately. The Court's analysis focused on balancing free speech with "special 9 (2015) 5 SCC 1 10 AIR 1957 SC 620 11 AIR 1962 SC 955 12 (1989) 2 SCC 574 54 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 interest" considerations, without engaging in a comparative assessment between Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21.
50. In Subramanian Swamy supra at para-No.168 it was stressed that to constitute the offence of defamation under Section 499 of 'the IPC.,' there must be a specific imputation made with intent, knowledge, or reasonable belief that it would harm the reputation of the person concerned, thereby establishing mens rea as a prerequisite. Section 44 of 'the IPC.,' defines "injury" to include harm to reputation, thus reinforcing the foundational element of reputational damage in criminal defamation. Additionally, in Sahib Singh Mehra v. State of U.P., 13 the Supreme Court clarified that for defamation of a group under Explanation 2 to Section 499, the collection of persons must be clearly identifiable and definite, as was the case with the prosecuting staff of Aligarh or Uttar Pradesh, distinguishing them from the public.
51. In Subramaninan Swamy supra at paragraph No.120 it is held that freedom of speech and expression is a highly treasured value under the Constitution and voice of dissent or disagreement has to be respected and regarded and not to be scuttled as unpalatable criticism. Emphasis has been laid on the fact that dissonant and discordant expressions are to be treated as viewpoints with objectivity and such expressions of views and ideas being necessary for growth of democracy are to be zealously protected. It was further 13 1965 SCC Online SC 256 55 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 observed that notwithstanding the expansive and sweeping ambit of freedom of speech, as all rights, right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. It is subject to imposition of reasonable restrictions. It emphasized that Article 19(2) envisages "reasonable restriction". Right to say what may displease or annoy others cannot be throttled or garroted. There can never be any cavil over the fact that the right to freedom of speech and expression is a right that must get ascendance in a democratic body polity, but at the same time the limit must be proportionate and not unlimited. The principles regard reasonable restrictions as have been stated by the Supreme Court from time to time are that the restriction should not be excessive and in public interest.
52. At paragraph No.195 it was held that right to freedom of speech and expression is a highly valued and cherished right. In a democracy it is not necessary that everyone should sing the same song; freedom of expression is the rule, and it is generally taken for granted Criticism and commentary on policies, enactments or opinions do not remotely constitute defamation is not defamation-Disapproval is not defamation. Balancing fundamental rights is a constitutional necessity.
53. In Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India 14 , the Court emphasized that press freedom is essential to democracy and that economic 14 (1985) 1 SCC 641 56 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 restrictions must not stifle editorial independence. These cases collectively affirm that the media's role in critiquing governance is constitutionally protected, and that the threshold for defamation is high when it comes to public institutions.
54. The Hon'ble Apex Court in R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N.,15 lays down foundational principles governing the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, emphasizing its scope as a "right to be let alone." It delineates the boundaries of permissible publication, especially concerning private matters, public records, and the conduct of public officials. The Hon'ble Apex Court also affirms that governmental bodies cannot sue for defamation and that prior restraint on press or media lacks statutory backing, thereby reinforcing the freedom of expression and press in a constitutional democracy. At paragraph No.26 held as under:
"26. We may now summarise the broad principles flowing from the above discussion:
(1) The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a "right to be let alone". A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent -- whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. Position may, however, be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy.
(2) The rule aforesaid is subject to the exception, that any publication concerning the aforesaid aspects becomes unobjectionable if such publication is based upon public records including court records. This is for the reason that once a matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and media among others. We are, however, of the opinion that in the interests of decency [Article 19(2)] an exception must be carved out to this rule, viz., a female who is 15 (1994) 6 SCC 632 57 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 the victim of a sexual assault, kidnap, abduction or a like offence should not further be subjected to the indignity of her name and the incident being publicised in press/media.
(3) There is yet another exception to the rule in (1) above -- indeed, this is not an exception but an independent rule. In the case of public officials, it is obvious, right to privacy, or for that matter, the remedy of action for damages is simply not available with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to the discharge of their official duties. This is so even where the publication is based upon facts and statements which are not true, unless the official establishes that the publication was made (by the defendant) with reckless disregard for truth. In such a case, it would be enough for the defendant (member of the press or media) to prove that he acted after a reasonable verification of the facts; it is not necessary for him to prove that what he has written is true. Of course, where the publication is proved to be false and actuated by malice or personal animosity, the defendant would have no defence and would be liable for damages. It is equally obvious that in matters not relevant to the discharge of his duties, the public official enjoys the same protection as any other citizen, as explained in (1) and (2) above. It needs no reiteration that judiciary, which is protected by the power to punish for contempt of court and Parliament and legislatures protected as their privileges are by Articles 105 and 104 respectively of the Constitution of India, represent exceptions to this rule. (4) So far as the Government, local authority and other organs and institutions exercising governmental power are concerned, they cannot maintain a suit for damages for defaming them.
(5) XXX (6) There is no law empowering the State or its officials to prohibit, or to impose a prior restraint upon the press/media."
55. In R. Rajagopal supra it was further held at paragraph No. 29 that the petitioners therein had a right to publish, what they allege to be the life story/autobiography of Auto Shankar insofar as it appeared from the public records, even without his consent or authorisation, but if they go beyond that and publish his life story, they might be invading his right to privacy and would be liable for the consequences in accordance with law; similarly, the State or its officials could not prevent or restrain the said publication; and the remedy of the affected public officials/public figures, if any, is after the publication. 58
Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025
56. State is a parent to every one of its citizens as far as Defamation law goes. It is natural that some parents encounter abusive vituperations from their children. Even after such vituperations, parents do not disown their children so easily. They always believe that their children will reform themselves soon. Only in the rarest of rarest of situations when the character and conduct of their children is irrevocably dismantled and irreconcilable, the parents reject them. The State's attitude towards defamation should also be the same as their threshold level of tolerance towards their citizens insofar as defamation is concerned should be like parents. Where the State has other channels under law to bring home the fault if any to the offender, the criminal defamation law under section 499 and 500 of 'the IPC.,' must be used by the State judiciously. A person or a public servant/constitutional functionary may act in a rash manner but not the State which will have to exercise highest restraint and maturity while launching criminal defamation cases. If the State turns into an impulsive prosecutor of criminal defamation cases that too in a social media age where abusive contents numbering tens are done against public figures, the Sessions Court would get overwhelmed with countless cases which turn out to be vindictive in nature at times simply to settle scores against opposition political parties. The legislative intent would never be to have this illegal purpose.
57. Section 11 of 'the I.P.C.,' being an inclusive definition is relevant in determining the legal capacity of entities to be aggrieved or to initiate 59 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 proceedings. However, it does not ipso facto confer upon the Government the status of a defamation complainant unless the statutory prerequisites are satisfied. Section 199 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' particularly its sub-sections (2) to (4), prescribes a special procedure for defamation cases where the aggrieved party is the President, Vice-President, Governor, or a Minister. In such cases, cognizance can only be taken upon a complaint made by the Public Prosecutor with prior sanction, and exclusively by a Court of Sessions. This provision is a procedural safeguard to prevent frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions under the guise of protecting official dignity. In the instant cases, the State has proceeded on a footing that does not invoke either of these provisions. Nonetheless, the learned Trial Court must remain vigilant to ensure that the prosecutorial mechanism is not employed to stifle legitimate criticism or journalistic expression, especially when the complainant is not a "person" in the legal sense contemplated under Section 11 of 'the I.P.C.,' nor is the procedure under Section 199 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' attracted. The mere fact that a publications contain adverse commentary on governmental functioning do not, without more, constitute a cognizable offence.
58. Regarding maintainability of complaints by the State Public Prosecutor, the complainant before the learned Trial Court is 'State' Public Prosecutor of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. In fact, there is no post called 'State' Public Prosecutor. In the High Court for arguing the criminal cases a Public Prosecutor 60 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 is appointed by the State Government after consultation with the High Court as per Section 24(1) of 'the Cr.P.C.,'/Section 18(1) of 'the BNSS'. Under Section 24(3) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' for every district, the State Government shall appoint a Public Prosecutor. Indeed, before the learned Trial Courts as per Section 24(3) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' there are Public Prosecutor and Additional Public Prosecutors appointed for discharging their duties as envisaged in 'the Cr.P.C'.
59. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the decision, relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K. Anbazhagan v. State of Karnataka16, wherein at paragraph No.28 it is held that the class or status of the Public Prosecutor is controlled by Sections 24 and 25-A of 'the Cr.P.C;' Section 24(1) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' restricted the appointment of Public Prosecutor for the High Court, for the provision commences with words "for every High Court;" sub-section (3) deals with the appointment of Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for the districts. The class or status of the Public Prosecutor is controlled by Sections 24 and 25-A of 'the Cr.P.C;' section 24(1) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' restricted the appointment of Public Prosecutor for the High Court, for the provision commences with words "for every High Court". Sub-section (3) deals with the appointment of Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for the districts; the scheme makes a perceptible 16 (2015) 6 SCC 158 61 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 demarcation and compartmentalization for the Public Prosecutor in the High Court and the district courts.
60. In the instant cases, the complaints under Section 199 (2) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' were not filed by the Public Prosecutors concerned of 'the learned Trial Courts' as appointed under Section 18 of 'the BNSS.,' / Section 24(3) of 'the Cr.P.C.' Section 199(2) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' provides an exception to Section 199(1) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' which lays down that no Court should take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of 'the I.P.C.,' except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. Thus, sub-Section 2 of Section 199 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' starts with a non-obstante clause. Sub-Section 2 of Section 199 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' provides that upon a complaint in writing made by Public Prosecutor, a Court of Sessions may take cognizance of such offence without the case being committed to it. The Public Prosecutor referred in Section 199 (2) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' is the Public Prosecutor mentioned under Section 24(3) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' but not the Public Prosecutor appointed under Section 24(1) of 'the Cr.P.C.'
61. The complaints were filed by the 'State' Public Prosecutor. It must be pointed out that there is no post like 'State' Public Prosecutor under 'the BNSS.,'/'the Cr.P.C.' The sections of 'the Cr.P.C.,' viz., Sections 2(u), 24, 25-A and 301 of 'the BNSS.,'/'the Cr.P.C.,' have to be understood in one singular scheme. They cannot be read bereft of their text and context. The Hon'ble Apex 62 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 Court in K. Anbazhagan supra, also observed that if the above sections are read as parts of different schemes they are bound to be anomaly. Hence, such an interpretation shall be avoided. Further Class or status of the Public Prosecutor is controlled by Sections 18 and 20 of 'the BNSS.,'/Sections 24 and 25-A of 'the Cr.P.C.' They have restricted the appointment of Public Prosecutor for the High Court and Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for the districts Courts. There is a separate procedure for appointments of such Public Prosecutor for the High Court and Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor for the district Courts.
62. The Hon'ble Apex Court in K.Anbazhagan supra clearly observed that if the Public Prosecutor appointed in connection with a district, his working sphere must be restricted to the district unless he is specially engaged to appear before the higher Court. Similarly, a Public Prosecutor appointed for the High Court, his working sphere has to be restricted to the High Court. Indeed, in the instant impugned Government Orders, while requiring the Public Prosecutor appointed for the High Court to file complaints before the learned Trial Courts, there were no special reasons assigned in the impugned Government Orders. If the Public Prosecutor is appointed exclusively to the High Court, his appointment is a restricted appointment. He cannot be required to do the work of the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutors for the Sessions Courts unless special reasons are assigned and special appointments in that regard is issued. 63
Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 In the impugned Government Orders, there is neither such special reasons nor special appointments. It was only required in the impugned Government Orders the 'State' Public Prosecutor, the High Court to take further immediate action in the matter, accordingly. And later the complainant filed complaints before 'the learned Trial Courts.'
63. In matters like criminal defamation, the job of the Public Prosecutor to file complaints under Section 199 (2) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' would not end with the mere filing of complaints. He needs to be examined by 'the learned Trial Courts' before taking cognizance of the alleged offences in all the cases. He should also be required to make himself available and subjected for the entire arduous exercise of trial which includes examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re- examination, if required. Of course, eventually he needs to submit his arguments before the learned Trial Courts in all sixteen complaints. If this is the length and breadth of the work of the Public Prosecutor in the instant cases which he requires to conduct, he cannot devote his assigned work to the High Court properly. To avoid all the above, there must have been either an appointment specifically with the Public Prosecutor for the High Court for filing the complaints and prosecuting them before 'the learned Trial Courts' till the complaints reach a logical conclusion or giving sanction to the Public Prosecutors of the district courts concerned.
64
Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025
64. Of course, 'the learned Trial Courts' ought to have taken an objection regarding authorization given by the Government to the 'State' Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh to file complaints without there being specifically an appointment contemplated under Section 24 (3) of 'the Cr.P.C.' The learned Trial Courts have also mechanically taken cognizance of the offences based on the complaints without analyzing all the above aspects.
65. Further, the Special Chief Secretary to Government on 14.02.2023 addressed a letter, instructing the 'State' Public Prosecutor of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to issue a legal notice against the editor and others of Eenadu Telugu Newspaper/Petitioners responsible publishing alleged defamatory, derogatory and venomous news. The letter dated 14.02.2023 addressed by the Special Chief Secretary to Government doesn't refer to the authority under which the Special Chief Secretary to Government instructed the learned State Public Prosecutor of High Court of Andhra Pradesh for issuing a defamatory notice. It must be pointed out that the Special Chief Secretary to Government cannot instruct a Public Prosecutor to issue notice. Public Prosecutor of any Court is minister of justice of that Court.
66. On 17.03.2023 the 'State' Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh issued a legal notice to the Petitioners calling upon the Petitioners to forthwith publish prominently in the first page a clarificatory statement in the forthcoming edition of the newspaper that the impugned article was based on 65 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 incorrect, false, unreliable, erroneous and unverified information supplied by unreliable sources and also publish a statement of unconditional apology for the article published on 10.02.2023 in the newspaper of the Petitioners.
67. Pursuant to the notice issued by the 'State' Public Prosecutor dated 17.03.2023 Mr. G.V.S.Jagannadha Rao, Advocate of the Petitioners issued a reply notice dated 10.07.2023 on the instructions of Petitioner No.2 that Petitioner No.2 is not in direct control of publication of Eenadu daily newspaper and Petitioner No.2 was not a necessary party to the controversy to Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, Advocate without referring him as 'State' Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
68. Later, on 22.05.2023 the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.R.T.No.290 under Section 199(2) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' accorded sanction to launch prosecution and to file defamation case against the Petitioners for the news published on 12.02.2023 in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper under the caption " ంఛ ం .. ఆక చం ం !," (Pension gone... hunger has taken life) and dated 11.02.2023 under the caption " ంఛ ఇవ ద కం ల ?". ("Isn't poverty enough to pay a pension?") The State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh shall take immediate further action in the matter.
66
Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025
69. In this context, it is apposite to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.K. Mishra v. State of M.P., 17 wherein while referring about the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Subramanian Swamy supra observed that the Public Prosecutor has got a duty towards the Court to scan the material based on which a complaint for defamation is to be filed. As per the understandings of Sections 199(2) and 199(4) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' there is an in- built safeguard which requires the Public Prosecutor to scan and be specific with the materials based on which a complaint for defamation is to be filed by him acting as the Public Prosecutor of the Court concerned. The Public Prosecutor cannot act like the post office on behalf of the State Government. He is required to peruse the materials on record and form an independent opinion. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Subramanian Swamy case supra at paragraph No.203 in categorical terms observed that the Public Prosecutor is required to act in good faith, he cannot remain oblivious to his lawful obligation under 'the Cr.P.C.,' and is required to constantly remember his duty to the Court as well as his duty to the collective while filing cases under Section 499 and 500 of 'the I.P.C.,', he is expected to maintain that independence and not act as a machine.
70. It is to be pointed out that the correct provision under which the Government ought to have issued Government Order is under Section 199(4) 17 (2018) 6 SCC 676 67 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' in case the authorities mentioned in subsection 2 of section 199 of the Cr.P.C., were defamed, but not, under Section 199(2) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' since Section 199(4) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' states that no complaint under sub-Section 2 of Section 199 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' shall be made by the Public Prosecutor except with the previous sanction of the State Government.
71. Section 199 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' deals with prosecution for defamation by a complaint made by only some person aggrieved by the offence. If an offence of defamation is committed against a person, who is the President of India or the Vice President of India or the Governor of a State or the Administrator of Union Territory or a Minister of Union or a State or of a Union Territory of any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the union or of a state in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions, the Court of Sessions may take cognizance of such offence without the case being committed to it upon a complaint in writing made by a Public Prosecutor.
72. In the instant cases, any one of the above-mentioned authorities is not the person against whom the alleged offence of defamation has been committed. In the impugned Government Orders, it was mentioned that the articles published in the newspaper of the Petitioners appeared to be defamatory in nature and likely to cause harm to the Government and mar the prestige and dignity of the Government. Section 199(2) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' refers to a person against whom the offence falling under Chapter XXI of 'the I.P.C.,' 68 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 is alleged to have been committed. It refers to a person. Person is not defined under Section 2 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' in the definition clause. However, person is defined under Section 11 of 'the I.P.C.,' as under:
"The word "person" includes any Company or Association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not."
73. The above definition is inclusive in nature. Government is the aggrieved person as per the impugned Government Orders, whereas the Government is a non-corpus body. In other words, Government is not a corpus body. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in R.Rajagopal supra observed that so far as the Government, local authority and institutions exercising governmental power are concerned, they cannot even maintain a suit for damages for defaming them. In an offence of defamation, a government cannot be an aggrieved person. The aggrieved person contemplated under Section 199(2) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' are the President of India, the Vice President of India, the Governor of State, the Administrator of Union Territory, the Minister of Union or of a State or a Union Territory or any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the union of state in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the instant cases, Government is neither a person nor an aggrieved person under sub-Section 2 of Section 199 of 'the Cr.P.C.' Hence, on this count also the complaints filed by the 'State' Public Prosecutor are not maintainable. 69
Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025
74. Further, 'the learned Trial Courts' numbered the complaint as per the orders dated 06.07.2023 as Calendar Case. No reasons, much less brief reasons were assigned before taking cognizance. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in this regard, in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI18, at paragraph No.58 in categorical terms held that before taking cognizance of the offence at least brief reasons must be assigned for taking cognizance against an offence. Therefore, on this count also the orders of cognizance are liable to be interfered and set aside.
75. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj19, held that whether an inquiry or investigation under Section 202 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' is mandatory when the accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. Following the 2005 amendment, which introduced the word "shall," the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such an inquiry is indeed mandatory to prevent the misuse of the legal process through false complaints intended to harass individuals living in distant places. The legislative intent, supported by the amendment's objective, reinforces the binding nature of this requirement. The inquiry, as defined under Section 2(g) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' involves examining witnesses and differs from the preliminary examination under Section 200 of 'the Cr.P.C.' Therefore, before issuing summons in such cases, the 18 (2015) 4 SCC 609 19 (2014) 14 SCC 638 70 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 learned Magistrate must conduct an inquiry or direct an investigation to determine if there is sufficient ground to proceed.
76. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of U.P.,20 underscores the mandatory nature of Section 202 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' as amended by the 2005 Amendment Act, requiring the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry or investigation before issuing process against an accused residing beyond his territorial jurisdiction. The provision serves as a safeguard against frivolous or vexatious prosecutions and ensures that summons is issued only upon a prima facie satisfaction of sufficient grounds, at paragraph No.40 held as follows:
"40. The Magistrate had issued summons without meeting the mandatory requirement of Section 202 CrPC, though the appellants were outside his territorial jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 202 CrPC were amended vide the Amendment Act, 2005, making it mandatory to postpone the issue of process where the accused resides in an area beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned. The same was found necessary in order to protect innocent persons from being harassed by unscrupulous persons and making it obligatory upon the Magistrate to enquire into the case himself, or to direct investigation to be made by a police officer, or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of finding out whether or not, there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused before issuing summons in such cases. (See also Shivjee Singh v. Nagendra Tiwary [(2010) 7 SCC 578], SCC p. 584, para 11 and National Bank of Oman v. Barakara Abdul Aziz (2013) 2 SCC 488."
77. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar21, at paragraph Nos.23, 25 to 27 observed that where the accused was residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercised his jurisdiction, it was mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to conduct an enquiry or investigation before issuing the process; there was a vital purpose or 20 (2013) 2 SCC 435 21 (2017) 3 SCC 528 71 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 objective behind this 2005 amendment, namely, to ward off false complaints against such people residing at a far-off places in order to save them from unnecessary harassment; thus, the amended provision casts an obligation on the Magistrate to conduct enquiry or direct investigation before issuing the process, so that false complaints are filtered and rejected; for this reason, the amended provision casts an obligation on the Magistrate to apply his mind carefully and satisfy himself that the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements recorded or the enquiry conducted thereon, would prima facie constitute the offence for which the complaint is filed; the requirement of conducting enquiry or directing investigation before issuing process is, therefore, not an empty formality.
78. The Hon'ble Apex Court in National Bank of Oman v. Barakara Abdul Aziz22, at paragraph Nos.8, 9 and 10 held as thus:
"8. We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar. It was, therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.
9. The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 CrPC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court. The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process has to be issued or not. Investigation under Section 202 CrPC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further. The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: 22
(2013) 2 SCC 488 72 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025
(i) on the materials placed by the complainant before the court;
(ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and
(iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.
10. Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted:
"and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction,"
The notes on clauses for the abovementioned amendment read as follows:
"False complaints are filed against persons residing at far off places simply to harass them. In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."
79. It must be emphasized that 'the learned Trial Courts' before issuing summons to the Petitioners/Accused had not verified whether all the Petitioners/Accused are residing within its jurisdiction or not, before proceeding to issue summons to the Petitioners. Though the complaint is filed before the learned Court of Sessions, for all practical purposes, the learned Court of Sessions is discharging the duties of a Magistrate since the learned Court of Sessions shall adopt the procedure of warrant cases. 'The learned Trial Courts' have taken the complaints on file as Calendar Cases but not as Sessions Cases. In such event 'the learned Trial Courts' were under legal obligation to comply with the procedure contemplated under Section 202(1) of 'the Cr.P.C.' Section 202(1) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' mandates that any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond an area in which he exercises the 73 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 jurisdiction, postpone the issue of process against the accused and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by the Police Officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there are sufficient grounds for proceeding as the offences punishable under Chapter XXI of 'the I.P.C.,' are generally triable by Magistrate of First Class as per Part-I of the Schedule appended to 'the Cr.P.C.'
80. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda23, at paragraph No. 20 it was held that since it was a process of taking judicial notice of certain facts which constitute an offence, there had to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements recorded or the inquiry conducted thereon, would constitute violation of law so as to call a person to appear before the criminal court. Further at paragraph No. 21 it was observed that under Section 190(1)(b) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' the Magistrate had the advantage of a police report and under Section 190(1)(c) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' he had the information or knowledge of commission of an offence, but under Section 190(1)(a) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' he had only a complaint before him by reling on the decision of the hon'ble Apex Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate24. 23
(2015) 12 SCC 420 24 (1998) 5 SCC 749 74 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025
81. In Mehmood Ul Rehman supra at paragraph 22, it was further stressed that the steps taken by the Magistrate under Section 190(1)(a) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' followed by Section 204 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' should reflect that the Magistrate had applied his mind to the facts and the statements and he was satisfied that there was ground for proceeding further in the matter by asking the person against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear before the court. Further it was highlighted that the Magistrate was not to act as a post office assistant in taking cognizance of each complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course. It was further stressed that there must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he was satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under Section 202 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' if any, the accused was answerable before the criminal court, there was ground for proceeding against the accused under Section 204 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' by issuing process for appearance. It was further noted that the application of mind was best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction; if there was no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under Sections 190/204 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' the High Court under Section 482 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' was bound to invoke it's inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. It was eventually emphasized that to be called to appear before the criminal court as an accused is serious matter 75 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 affecting one's dignity, self-respect and image in society, and hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment.
82. In Mehmood Ul Rehman supra at paragraph 23, it was further highlighted that though no formal or speaking or reasoned orders are required at the stage of Sections 190/204 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' there must be sufficient indication on the application of mind by the Magistrate to the facts constituting commission of an offence and the statements recorded under Section 200 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' so as to proceed against the offender. No doubt, the High Court is right in holding that the veracity of the allegations is a question of evidence. It was furthermore held that the question was not about veracity of the allegations, but whether the respondents were answerable at all before the criminal court.
83. The High Court of Delhi in The Wire through Its Editor v. Amita Singh25 at paragraph No.10 it was rightly pointed out that the written matter, viz., the subject publication, was not before the learned magistrate in any admissible form and held that before issuing summons in a criminal complaint alleging defamation, a Magistrate must act with great circumspection, and be careful in assessing whether or not an offence is disclosed by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy supra. 25
Crl.M.C.No.2792/2017 dated 29.03.2023 76 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025
84. It is imperative to note that in the instant cases, on perusal of all the complaints filed by the learned 'State' Public Prosecutor before 'the learned Trial Courts', the alleged defamatory articles published on various dates on different subjects were not filed before 'the learned Trial Courts' in any admissible forms. That is to say the admissible evidence of whole newspaper of the day containing the alleged defamatory articles was not filed appending with the complaints. Only paper cuttings of the relevant dates pertaining to the alleged defamatory articles were only filed along with the complaints.
85. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Subramanian Swamy supra at para No.207 it was vividly held that in case of criminal defamation neither can any FIR be filed nor can any direction be issued under Section 156(3) of 'the Cr.P.C;' the offence has its own gravity and hence, the responsibility of the Magistrate is more; in a way, it is immense at the time of issue of process. By relying on another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajindra Nath Mahato v. T. Ganguly26, wherein it was stressed that issue of process is a matter of judicial determination and before issuing a process, the Magistrate had to examine the complainant.
86. By further relying on another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Punjab National Bank v. Surendra Prasad Sinha27, wherein it was held that 26 (1972) 1 SCC 450 27 1993 Supp (1) SCC 499 77 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. It was further observed that there lie responsibility and duty on the Magistracy to find whether the accused concerned should be legally responsible for the offence charged for; only on satisfying that the law casts liability or creates offence against the juristic person or the persons impleaded, then only process would be issued.
87. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Surendra Prasad Sinha supra at paragraph No.6 held that judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. When a complaint was laid impleading the Chairman, the Managing Director of the Bank by name and a host of officers, it was emphasized that there lies responsibility and duty on the Magistracy to find whether the concerned accused should be legally responsible for the offence charged for and only on satisfying that the law casts liability or creates offence against the juristic person or the persons impleaded then only process would be issued; at that stage the court would be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of the private complaint as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly. It was further observed that vindication of majesty of justice and maintenance of law and order in the society are the prime objects of criminal justice, but it would not be the means to wreak personal vengeance. Saying so it was observed that 78 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 the respondent therein had abused the process and laid complaint against all the appellants without any prima facie case to harass them for vendetta.
88. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. supra at paragraph No.28 it was held that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he had applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto; the Magistrate had to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It was further noted that the Magistrate is not a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused; the Magistrate had to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused. Eventually, it was held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course.
89. Indeed, offences under Sections 500, 501(A) and 502(A) of 'the I.P.C.,' are triable by a Court of Sessions if the defamation alleged is against the President or the Vice President or the Governor of a State or the Administrator of Union Territory or Minister in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions, when instituted upon a complaint by Public Prosecutor. 79
Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 Defamation in any other case is triable by Judicial Magistrate of First Class. However, the offences are bailable and non-cognizable. If an offence is a bailable one, the procedure contemplated under 'the Cr.P.C.,' for trial is either summons trial or summary trial or warrant trial. Though the alleged offences are triable by Court of Session as per the first Schedule, the nature of the trial is not a Sessions Trial, but either a summons or summary or warrant trial. If the nature of trial is not a Sessions Trial, albeit Sections 500, 501(A) and 502(A) are exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, the trial is not as contemplated under Sections 225 to 236 of Chapter XVIII of 'the Cr.P.C.' Section 237 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' provides for procedure in cases instituted under Section 199(2) of 'the Cr.P.C.' Sub-Section 1 of Section 237 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' specifically states that the Court of Session taking cognizance of the offence under Sub-section 2 of Section 199 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' shall trial the case in accordance with the procedure for trial of warrant cases instituted otherwise than on a police report before a Court of Magistrate provided that the person against whom an offence is liable to have been committed shall, unless the Court of Session, for reasons to be recorded, otherwise directs, be examined as a witness for the prosecution.
90. Trial of warrant cases by Magistrates is contemplated under Chapter XIX of 'the Cr.P.C.,' from Sections 238 to 250. Sections 238 to 243 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' provide trial of warrant cases instituted on a police report. Sections 244 to 247 provide for trial of warrant cases instituted otherwise than of police report. 80
Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 Therefore, as per Section 237(1) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' for the trial of the offences under Chapter XXI of 'the I.P.C.,' and the cases instituted under Section 199(2) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' the trial procedure is as per Sections 244 to 247 of 'the Cr.P.C.' Of course, the procedure for conclusion of warrant trial is contemplated under Sections 248 to 250 of 'the Cr.P.C.'
91. The trial under Section 237 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' is in-camera, if either party thereto so desires or if the Court of Sessions thinks it so to do. It is not in dispute that Petitioner No.2/Accused No.2 is resident of Hyderabad, for that matter except Petitioner No.4/Accused No.5 rest of all the Petitioners/Accused are residents of Hyderabad. They are not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of 'the learned Trial Courts'. As per the mandate of 202(1) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' before issuing process against the Petitioners/Accused, it is obligatory on 'the learned Trial Courts' to postpone the issue of process against the persons, who are not residing within the local limits of the Court and are residing beyond the area in which 'the learned Trial Courts' exercise their jurisdiction, either inquire into the case itself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or such other person as it thinks it for the purpose of deciding whether or not there exists sufficient ground for proceeding. 'The learned Trial Courts' had not postponed the issue of process, though they were under legal obligation to do so, as all the Petitioners except one are not residing within the local limits of the jurisdiction of 'the learned Trial Court'. Therefore, the procedure contemplated 81 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 under Section 202 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' shall be followed even in trial of complaints filed under Section 199(2) of 'the Cr.P.C.' 'The learned Trial Courts' neither conducted an inquiry mandated under Section 202(1) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' nor directed an investigation for the purpose of deciding whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding. On this count also, the impugned orders of taking cognizance of the offences must be found fault.
92. On another point of argument that non-examination on oath the public prosecutor and the public servant, who issued the Government Orders giving sanctions for prosecution, under section 200 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' the High Court of Madras in Thiru N. Ram v. Union of India28, at paragraph No.71(g) held as under:
"g) The level of scrutiny by a Sessions Court under section 199(2) Cr.P.C. is much higher than the scrutiny by a Magistrate under section 199(6) Cr.P.C.
Before taking cognizance under section 199(2) Cr.P.C., the Sessions court can even order for further investigation. The Sessions court cannot mechanically take cognizance of the complaint and issue process to the accused. The court will have to independently apply its judicial mind and assess the materials and only if it is satisfied take cognizance of the complaint. The materials assessed shall be indicated by the Sessions Court in its order taking cognizance of the complaint filed under section 199(2) Cr.P.C."
93. In Section 199(2) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' defamation cases, the public prosecutor has an extremely crucial role to play. The task is really special as in such cases, the public prosecutor plays a two-fold role both as a person acting on behalf of the public servant/constitutional functionary as well as a public prosecutor. Hence, the cardinal principles discussed above will have to be 28 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 1023 82 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 followed scrupulously by the public prosecutor while preferring complaints under section 199(2) of 'the Cr.P.C.'
94. Public Prosecutor in a complaint presented under section 199(2) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' would be examined as witness and only after that the Sessions Court, if it is satisfied with materials and the complaint, can take cognizance and order process to be issued to the accused. Proviso to Section 200 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' regarding examination of witnesses must be strictly adhered to by Sessions Court.
95. 'The learned Trial Courts' prior to taking cognizance of a complaint presented under section 199(2) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' must exercise its judicial mind to the material placed on record and only if it is convinced that ingredients for taking cognizance under Section 199(2) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' has been established, shall take cognizance and issue summons to the accused. Where a particular procedure is envisaged under section 200 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' it cannot be altered by following some other procedure which is not laid down, even if it may be convenient for the complainant. The reason for recording the contents of sworn statement by the Magistrate/Sessions Judge is to allow the Magistrate/Sessions judge to fulfill himself of the allegation in the complaint to go ahead with the case further and put the accused on notice regarding the allegations.
96. It is important to note that without the complainant being examined, 'the learned Trial Courts' took cognizance of the alleged offences. The learned Trial 83 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 Courts, without applying their mind and examining the complainant/State public Prosecutor, the public servant, who issued the Government Orders giving sanctions for prosecution, as mandated under Section 200 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' had taken cognizance of offences. This irregular procedure shall also be found fault with as much prejudice was caused to the Petitioners/Accused.
97. A bona fide criticism not against any person or authority mentioned under Section 199(2) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' the instant complaints are not maintainable for the simple reason that the Government does not come under the meaning of person aggrieved. Even with bare perusal of the averments of the complaints filed by the 'State' Public Prosecutor, the complaints do not allege that any public servant or officer or authorities mentioned under Section 199(2) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' was defamed. The impugned articles allegedly published by the Petitioners do not name any constitutional authorities mentioned under Section 199(2) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' or any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the State Government. Therefore, on this score also taking cognizance of offences shall be found fault with.
98. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners contend that the Petitioners are protected under First, Second, Third and Tenth exceptions of Section 499 of 'the I.P.C.' In fact, about the averments of the impugned articles, the criticism is not aimed at any individual or official, it was against the Government. Section 499 of 'the I.P.C.,' carves out ten exceptions for the offence of defamation. The 84 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 first exception is imputation of the truth which public goods require to be made or published. First exception lays down that it is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person if it is for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.
99. The second exception is public conduct of public servants. It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions or respecting his character so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Section 52 of 'the I.P.C.,' deals with good faith. Section 52 of 'the I.P.C.,' lays down that nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith, which is done or believed without due care and attention.
100. The third exception to the offence defined under Section 499 of 'the I.P.C.,' is conduct of any person touching on any public question. It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question and respecting his character so far as his appears in that conduct, and no further.
101. The tenth exception is caution intended for good of person to whom it was conveyed or for public good. It is not defamation to convey caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution is intended for 85 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 the good of the person to whom it is conveyed or of some person in whom that person is interested or for the public good.
102. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court in R. Rajagopal supra at paragraph No.26(3) observed that even publication is based upon facts and statements which are not true, unless the official aggrieved establishes that publication was made (by the defendant) with reckless disregard for truth. In such a case, it would be enough for the member of the press or the media to prove that he or it acted after a reasonable verification of the facts; it was not necessary for him or it to prove what was written is true.
103. It is settled law vide M.A. Rumugam v. Kittu 29 and Subramanian Swamy supra that those who plead exceptions must prove it. It is a matter of evidence during trial. Since this Court finds fault with launching prosecutions for the alleged offences of criminal defamations against the Petitioners at the stage of taking cognizance itself, the contention that the case of the Petitioners would fall under exceptions need not be answered, inasmuch as it is a matter of trial, in any case.
104. 'The learned Trial Courts' have failed to appreciate that the complainant has no locus to file the complaints, as no specific person mentioned in sub- section 2 of section 199 of 'the Cr.P.C.' being allegedly defamed, has been identified in the entire complaints.
29
(2009) 1 SCC 101 86 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025
105. Verily, the newspaper in question is a media entity representing the fourth estate of the democracy which was exercising its right to report on matters of public interest and governance, and such report is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, which are not applicable here.
106. It must also be pointed out that the sanctions for prosecutions granted to the complainant by issuing necessary impugned Government Orders are in complete disregard of the provisions contained in Section 199(2) of 'the Cr.P.C.' The Sanctions obviously suffer from complete non-application of mind, and it is nothing but abuse of process of law. As per Section 499 of 'the I.P.C.,' Government be State or Union is not a person aggrieved under Section 199 (2) of 'the Cr.P.C.' Before taking cognizance of the offences and issuing process to the Petitioners, 'the learned Trial Courts' had not adhered to the provisions of 'the Cr.P.C.,' by conducting an inquiry or investigation. This inaction on the part of 'the learned Trial Courts' being hit by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees right to life and personal liberty as per the procedure established by law requiring procedural fairness. 'The learned Trial Courts' failed to appreciate the absence of basic ingredients of Section 499 of 'the I.P.C.,' in the complaints to appreciate the intention of causing harm to the reputation of the Government or actual harm caused to the reputation. There is no mens rea. Therefore, 'the learned Trial Courts' ought not to have taken 87 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 cognizance, as there was no prima facie case at all made out under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of 'the I.P.C.,' read with under Section 199(2) of 'the Cr.P.C.'
107. Eventually, while individuals and identifiable institutions can seek remedies under defamation law, the government cannot be defamed unless specific officials or departments are targeted with false and malicious imputations. Media entities, as custodians of public discourse, are empowered to critique governance, expose inefficiencies, and question authority. Their rights are constitutionally protected, but not absolute.
108. Regarding the contention that public prosecutors are not a mere post office, the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.K. Mishra supra emphasizes that a Public Prosecutor must act independently and responsibly when filing defamation complaints under Sections 499 and 500 of 'the I.P.C.' He should not act merely as a representative or "post office" of the government, but must carefully examine the materials, act in good faith, and uphold his duty to both the Court and the public. This independent scrutiny serves as an important safeguard in such prosecutions, at paragraph Nos.14, 16 & 17 held as under:
"14. There is yet another dimension to the case. In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221 one of the grounds on which the challenge to the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 IPC was sustained by this Court was the understanding that Sections 199(2) and 199(4) CrPC provide an inbuilt safeguard which require the Public Prosecutor to scan and be satisfied with the materials on the basis of which a complaint for defamation is to be filed by him acting as the Public Prosecutor. In this regard, an earlier decision of this Court in Bairam Muralidhar v. State of A.P. (2014) 10 SCC 380 while dealing with Section 321 CrPC (i.e. withdrawal from prosecution) was considered by this Court and it was held as follows : (Subramanian Swamy case [Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221 : SCC p. 349, para 203) 88 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 "203. ... It is ordinarily expected that the Public Prosecutor has a duty to scan the materials on the basis of which a complaint for defamation is to be filed. He has a duty towards the court. This Court in Bairam Muralidhar v. State of A.P. (2014) 10 SCC 380 while deliberating on Section 321 CrPC has opined that the Public Prosecutor cannot act like a post office on behalf of the State Government. He is required to act in good faith, peruse the materials on record and form an independent opinion. It further observed that he cannot remain oblivious to his lawful obligations under the Code and is required to constantly remember his duty to the court as well as his duty to the collective. While filing cases under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, he is expected to maintain that independence and not act as a machine."
(emphasis supplied)
16. The testimony of the Public Prosecutor in his cross-examination effectively demonstrates that the wholesome requirement spelt out by Sections 199(2) and 199(4) CrPC, as expounded by this Court in Subramanian Swamy, has not been complied with in the present case. A Public Prosecutor filing a complaint under Section 199(2) CrPC without due satisfaction that the materials/allegations in complaint discloses an offence against an authority or against a public functionary which adversely affects the interests of the State would be abhorrent to the principles on the basis of which the special provision under Sections 199(2) and 199(4) CrPC has been structured as held by this Court in P.C. Joshi v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 387.
17. The Public Prosecutor in terms of the statutory scheme under the Criminal Procedure Code plays an important role. He is supposed to be an independent person and apply his mind to the materials placed before him. As held in Bairam Muralidhar case at (SCC p. 392, para 18) "18. ... He cannot remain oblivious to his lawful obligations under the Code. He is required to constantly remember his duty to the court as well as his duty to the collective.""
109. On a careful analysis of the entire material on record, there is no doubt to hold that the 'State' Public Prosecutor had not acted independently and responsibly when he filed complaints before 'the learned Trial Courts.' He had not examined the material carefully. There is no record placed and established that an independent scrutiny was conducted by the learned 'State' Public Prosecutor.
110. Considering the foregoing, this Court is of the benign view that the cognizance taken by 'the learned Trial Courts' is mechanical, bereft of judicial application, and has occasioned a miscarriage of justice. The prosecution, 89 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 having been instituted in contravention of substantive and procedural law, stands vitiated.
CONCLUSION:
111. The procedural irregularities committed at the stage of cognizance are grave and vitiate the proceedings ab initio. The mandatory safeguards under Sections 200 and 202 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' including the examination of the complainant and witnesses on oath before issuance of process, were disregarded. When some Petitioners reside beyond 'the learned Trial Courts' territorial jurisdiction, it was incumbent upon 'the learned Trial Courts' to defer issuance of process and conduct an inquiry under Section 202 of 'the Cr.P.C.' Furthermore, the sanction purportedly accorded under Section 199(2) of 'the Cr.P.C.,' is untenable, as the State, being an impersonal entity, cannot be a complainant in a defamation case unless the imputation concerns the official conduct of a specific public servant. The present prosecution, ostensibly initiated to safeguard the institutional reputation of the Government, amounts to a colourable exercise of power, violative of the constitutional guarantee of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and contrary to public policy and democratic principles. Consequently, the impugned orders of cognizance are liable to be set aside as an abuse of the process of law.
112. Therefore, it is held that no criminal proceedings shall lie against the Petitioners in respect of the impugned publications. The criminal prosecutions, 90 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 in the facts and circumstances disclosed, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed by setting aside the impugned orders of taking cognizance passed by 'the learned Trial Courts'. The complaints and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are also set aside.
113. With the above observations and directions, these Criminal Revision Cases are allowed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 27.10.2025 Note: LR copy to be marked B/o VTS