Bangalore District Court
Mohan Kumar A vs Sr Vishwanath on 26 June, 2025
KABC030960642021
Presented on : 27-12-2021
Registered on : 27-12-2021
Decided on : 26-06-2025
Duration : 3 years, 5 months, 30 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XLII ADDL.CJM, BENGALURU.
Present: Shri.K.N.SHIVAKUMAR, B.Sc.,(Agri),L.L.M.,
Sr.Civil Judge & JMFC
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2025
C.C.No. 37125/2021
COMPLAINANT: SRI. MOHAN KUMAR. A
S/o. Late Ashwathaiah,
Aged about 47 Years,
Residing at No. 265, 2nd Block,
6th Main R.T. Nagar,
BENGALURU 560032.
(By Sri. K.M.S Advocate)
-Vs-
ACCUSED: Sri. S.R. VISHWANATH
Member of Legislative Assembly
Yelahanka constituency
Chairman
Bengaluru Development Authority
Singanayakanahalli
2 C.C.No. 37125/2021
Yelahanka,
BENGALURU 560064.
Also at:
Sri. S.R. VISHWANATH
Chairman
Bengaluru Development Authority,
No.7, T. Chowdaiah Road,
Kumara Park West,
BENGALURU 560020.
(By Sri. B.H Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The Complainant has filed this complaint U/Sec.200 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the Accused for the offence under Sec.499 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( in short 'IPC' ), which is punishable U/Sec.500 of IPC.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows; That the complainant is an accomplished businessman and he has achieved high reputation in the society both due to his success in business as well as 3 C.C.No. 37125/2021 due to his philanthropic activities. He has achieved success while maintaining high standards of integrity and honesty and he is well known amongst his large circle of friends and family members and he is well known public figure not only in the City of Bengaluru, but throughout the State of Karnataka. It is alleged that on 10/02/2021, the B-TV Channel carried out a series of programmes and news items apart from news, scrolls, making fake statements, false and unprivileged statements and allegations against the complainant knowingly and intentionally to damage his reputation. The News Channel has interviewed the accused and the accused has spoken live on camera to the said Channel and in the course of interview, the accused have made fake, false and unprivileged statements and allegations against the complainant, knowingly and intentionally to damage his reputation. In the course of statements, the accused alleged that the complainant is behind all the scams in the Bengaluru Developement Athority (here in after 4 C.C.No. 37125/2021 referred as 'BDA' in short) and he has involved in big scams and the accused has claimed for an investigation by the CCB and the accused have further claimed that the name of the complainant is directly exposed in the BDA scam and BDA Commissioner is also looking into it and the accused have also called for a police investigation into the matter and he has further claimed that the complainant is king pin for several scams in the BDA and several IAS, IPC Officers are in his pocket. It is further alleged that the complainant is an agent and broker and he is king pin in several scams and acts of corruption and he has played a role in the allotment of land to Bhavani Society. It is further alleged that the complainant is operating from outside BDA Office and he meets officers of BDA outside. It is further alleged that the complainant used to threaten the officers of BDA with ACB raids and gets his files cleared and that the complainant does not touch files which are less than Rs.10 crore value. It is alleged that the allegations are 5 C.C.No. 37125/2021 wholly unsubstantiated, imaginary and created by the accused with an intention to damage the reputation and bring down his image in the public. It is further alleged that the statements made by the accused in the programme have reached number of followers and persons familiar with the complainant and his friends have watched the programme. On these allegations, the accused is alleged to have committed the offence punishable U/sec. 500 of IPC.
3. After filing the complaint, the same was registered in PCR. As the allegations of complaint made out a prima facie case for taking cognizance, the complainant was examined U/sec. 200 of Cr.P.C., and five more witnesses were also examined U/sec. 200 of Cr.P.C., and the cognizance of the Offence P/U/Sec.500 of IPC was taken and issued summons to the Accused. After service of summons, Accused entered appearance through his counsel and was enlarged on bail. The 6 C.C.No. 37125/2021 substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to have defense to make.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW.1 and got marked 10 documents as Ex.P1 to 10. He also examined 4 more witnesses in support of his case as PW2 to 5. In the course of cross-examination of PW1, the accused got marked 2 documents as per Ex.D1 & 2 on confrontation. Thereafter, the accused was examined U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C., wherein he has denied the incriminating evidence appeared against him in the evidence of PW1 to 5 by filing a written statement and he has not led any defence evidence.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned advocate for the 7 C.C.No. 37125/2021 accused & also written arguments filed by him and perused the materials available on record.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, the accused on 10.02.2021, spoke live on camera in B-TV Channel and in the interview has made false allegations and statements against the complainant stating that this complainant is behind the BDA scams and such other allegations, knowingly & intentionally to damage the reputation of the complainant and thereby he has committed the offence punishable U/sec.500 of Indian Penal Code ?
2. What Order ?
7. My answer to the above points are as follows :
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
8. Point No.1 :- It is the specific case of the complainant that on 10/02/2021 the accused while giving a live interview to the B - TV Kannada News 8 C.C.No. 37125/2021 channel made false and defamatory allegations against the complainant with the intention and knowledge to damage the reputation of the complainant and the said interview was telecasted in the said B-TV channel in a series of programs and News items. As such, said false allegations made by the accused were viewed by the public at large including the family and friends of the complainant. As such, the reputation of the complainant in the eye of his friends, relatives, family members and the public at large was damaged. It is specific allegation that, the accused in the said interview stated that, the complainant is beyond all the scams of BDA and involved in big scams in the BDA, for which he would order for an investigation by CCB. Further, the accused alleged that, complainant is the king-pin for several scams in BDA and several IAS & IPS officers are in his pocket. It is further alleged that, complainant is an agent & Broker and also a king-pin for several acts of corruption in BDA including allotment of land to Bhavani Society and other schemes 9 C.C.No. 37125/2021 of allotment of alternative sites by the BDA. Further, the complainant used to threaten the officers of BDA about ACB raid and get his files cleared. He would not touch any file less than Rs.10 crores. The BDA officers would welcome this complainant with red-carpet. The following are the relevant extraction of the transcript of alleged interview conversation as re-produced by the complainant in his complaint;
" ಬಿಡಿಎ ಅದ್ಯ ಕ್ಷ ವಿಶ್ವ ನಾಥ್ : ಮೋಹನ್ ಯಾರು ನಾನು ನೋಡಿಲ್ಲ . ಅವರ ಹೆಸರು ಕೇಳಿ ಬರ್ತಿದೆ ಅಷ್ಟ ೇ . ಏಜೆಂಟ್ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಿ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಮತ್ತು ಮಾರಾಟಗಾರರಿಗೆ ದಲ್ಲಾ ಳಿ. ಆರ್ ಟಿ ನಗರ ಮೋಹನ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳ್ತಾ ರೆ. ಬಿಡಿಎ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ವರೆಗೂ ನಡೆದಿರುವ ಅಕ್ರ ಮಗಳಿಗೆ ಭ್ರ ಷ್ಟಾ ಚಾರಗಳಿಗೆ ಕಿಂಗ್ ಪಿನ್ ಅಂತ ಹೇಳ್ತಾ ರೆ. ಸುಮ್ನೆ ಹೇಳ್ತಿ ನಿ . ಉದಾಹರಣೆಗೆ ಭವಾನಿ ಸೊಸೈಟಿಗೆ ಜಾಗನ ಅಲಾರ್ಟ್ ಮಾಡ್ತ ೀವಿ. ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಹೇಳಿ ಮಾಡಿಸೋದ್ರ ಲ್ಲಿ ಅವರ ಪಾತ್ರ ವೂ ಇರುತ್ತ ದೆ. ಭವಾನಿಗೆ ಹನ್ನೆ ರಡೂವರೆ ಎಕರೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟೆ ಅಂದುಕೊಳ್ಳಿ . ಇದನ್ನು ಏನು ಮಾಡ್ತಾ ನೆ, ಮೋಹನ ಎನ್ನು ವನು ರೇಟ್ ಫಿಕ್ಸ್ ಮಾಡ್ತಾ ನೆ. ಅಂದಾಜಿಲ್ಲಿ , ಸೊಸೈಟಿಗೆ ಐದು ಸಾವಿರ ಕೊಡ್ತ ೀನಿ. ಉಳಿಕೆ ನಾನು 10 C.C.No. 37125/2021 ಇಟ್ಕ ೋತೀನಿ ಅಂತ ಹೇಳಿ ತಗೋತಾನೆ. ನಾವು ಕೊಡ್ತಿ ರೋ ಜಾಗ ಚದರಡಿ ಹದಿನೈದು ಹದಿನಾರು ಸಾವಿರ ರೂಪಾಯಿ ಮಾರ್ಕೆಟ್ ದರ. ನಾಲ್ಕ ೈದು ಸಾವಿರ ಬೇರೆಯವರಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟು ಉಳಿದಿದ್ದು ಈಗ ಇಟ್ಕ ೋತಾನೆ.
ಈತ (ಮೋಹನ) ಹೊರಗೆ ಇದ್ದು ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡ್ತಾ ನೆ. ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳೇನು ಹೊರಗೆ ಹೋಗಿ ಭೇಟಿ ಮಾಡ್ತಾ ರೆ , ನಾವು ಸಗಟು ವ್ಯಾ ಪಾರಿಗಳಾ . . . ಜನ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ರಿಗೆ ಬಡವರಿಗೆ ನಿವೇಶನ ಕೊಡೋದು ಬಿಡಿಎ ಉದ್ದೆ ೕಶ . ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಬ್ರ ೋಕರ್ ತಿಲಾಂಜಲಿ ಇಟ್ಟಿ ದ್ದಾ ನೆ.
ಶೇಷಕೃಷ್ಣ : ಆರ್ ಟಿ ನಗರ ಮೋಹನ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಸಿಎಂಗೆ ದೂರು ಕೋಡ್ತ ೀನಿ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ರಿ . ದೂರು ಕೊಟ್ಟ ರೆ , ಈತನ ಮನೆ ಮೇಲೆ ದಾಳಿ ನಡೆದರೆ, ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳ ಬಂಡವಾಳ ಬಯಲಾಗುತ್ತ ದೆ ಗ್ಯಾ ರಂಟಿ ಅನಿಸುತ್ತ ದೆ.
ವಿಶ್ವ ನಾಥ್ : ಖಂಡಿತಾ, ಖಂಡಿತಾ .. ಮೋಹನ ಅಲ್ಲ , ಇತರ ಯಾರೇ ಏಜೆಂಟ್ ರು ಬರಬಾರದು. ಕೆಲವರು ಸಣ್ಣ ಪುಟ್ಟ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಿ ಐದಾರು ಸಾವಿರ ದುಡೀತಾರೆ, ಅದು ಬೇರೆ . ಇವರು ಬಿಡಿಎ 11 C.C.No. 37125/2021 ನ್ನ ನುಂಗಾಕ್ತಾ ರೆ , ನಾವು ಯಾಕೆ ಇರಬೇಕು. ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಏಜೆಂಟರಿಗೆ ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಬಿಡೋಣ.
ಶೇಷ ಕೃಷ್ಣ : ಆರ್ ಟಿ ನಗರ ಮೋಹನ ಮೇಲೆ ಏನು ಆಕ್ಷನ್ ತಗೂಳ್ಳ ೋಕೆ ಡೈರೆಕ್ಷನ್ಮಾಡ್ತ ೀರಿ ?
ವಿಶ್ವ ನಾಥ್ : ನಮ್ಮ ಮುಖ್ಯ ಮಂತ್ರಿ ಗಳು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ . ಅವನು ಆರ್.ಟಿ ನಗರ ಮೋಹನ ಯಾರೇ ಇದ್ದ ರೂ , ಈ ಹಿಂದೆ ಆಗಿರುವ .. ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ನಾನು ಎಸ್ಐಟಿ ಗೆ ಒತ್ತಾ ಯ ಮಾಡ್ತಿ ದ್ದ ೀನಿ . ಸ್ಟ ೇ ಇದೆ , ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಎಸ್ಐಟಿ ಗೆ ಕೊಡೋಕೆ ಬರಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಆಯುಕ್ತ ರು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ . ಏಜೆಂಟರನ್ನ ಆಯುಕ್ತ ರು ರಕ್ಷಣೆ ಮಾಡ್ತಿ ದ್ದಾ ರೆ . ತಕ್ಷಣ ಆಯುಕ್ತ ರು , ಕೋರ್ಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಪರ್ಟಿಕ್ಯು ಲರ್ ವ್ಯ ಕ್ತಿ ಮೇಲೆ ಸ್ಟ ೇ ಇರುತ್ತೆ ೕ. ಜನರಲ್ ಆಗಿ ಎಸ್ಐಟಿಗೆ ಕೊಡಲಿ , ಏಜೆಂಟರು ರಾಜಕಾರಣಿಗಳು ಎಲ್ಲ ರೂ ಬರ್ತಾರೆ.
ಇನ್ನೂ ಈ ಆರ್ ಟಿ ನಗರ ಮೋಹನ ತನ್ನ ಕೈಚಳಕ ತೋರಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ. ಯಾವ ರೀತಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿ ದ್ದಾ ರೆ ಎಂಬುದನ್ನು
ಬಿಡಿಎ ಅಧ್ಯ ಕ್ಷ ಎ.ಆರ್. ವಿಶ್ವ ನಾಥ್ಮಾತಾನಾಡಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ. 12 C.C.No. 37125/2021
ವಿಶ್ವ ನಾಥ್ : ಮೋಹನ್ ಅವರನ್ನು ಯಾರು ಅಂತ ನಾನು ನೋಡಿಲ್ಲ . ಬಟ್ ಬಿಡಿಎ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಹೆಸರು ಓಡ್ತಿ ರೋದು ಅವರದ್ದೆ ೕ . ಏಜೆಂಟ್ ಆಗಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಿ, ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳಿಗೂ ಮಾರಾಟಗಾರರಿಗೂ ದಲ್ಲಾ ಳಿ ಇವರು. ಬಿಡಿಎ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಹಿಂದೆ ನಡೆದಿರುವ ಭ್ರ ಷ್ಟ ಚಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಇವರೂ ಮೈನ್ ಕಿಂಗ್ ಪಿನ್. ಈಗ ನಾವು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿ ರುವ ಮಾರ್ಕೆಟ್ ವ್ಯಾ ಲ್ಯೂ ಹದಿನೈದು ಸಾವಿರ ಇರೋದು. ಇವರು ನಾಲ್ಕೆ ೃದು ಸಾವಿರಕ್ಕೆ ಚದರಡಿ ಮಾತನಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ಉಳಿದ ಹಣ ತಗೋತಾರೆ . ಹತ್ತು ವರ್ಷ ಆದರು ರೈತರಿಗೆ ನಿವೇಶನ ಸಿಗಲ್ಲ . ಈತನ ಜತೆ ಹೋದ್ರೆ ಎಚ್ ಎಸ್ ಆರ್ ಲೇಔಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಸೈಟ್ ಸಿಗುತ್ತೆ . ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಕೋಟಿಗಳನ್ನು ನೀಡಬೇಕು.
ಬಿಡಿಎ ಅಧ್ಯ ಕ್ಷರು ಎಸ್.ಆರ್. ವಿಶ್ವ ನಾಥ್ ಪ್ರ ತಿಕ್ರಿ ಯೆ :
ಇಂದರ್ ರೆಡ್ ಹ್ಯಾ ಂಡ್ ಆಗಿ ನಮ್ಮ ಪೋಲಿಸರ ಕೈಗೆ ಏಜೆಂಟ್ ಗಿರಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುವಾಗ ಸಿಕ್ಕಿ ಬಿದ್ರು . ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಪೋಲೀಸರು ಎಫ್ಐಆರ್ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ. ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಯವರೆಗೂ ಯಾರು ಮೋಹನ್ ಅಂತ ಇದ್ದಾ ರೆ, ಸಾಕ್ಷಾ ಧಾರ ಇಟ್ಟು ಕೊಂಡು ಪ್ರ ಕರಣ ದಾಖಲು ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ . ಇವತ್ತು ಅವರ ಹೆಸರು ಹೊರಗೆ ಬಂದಿರುವುದು, ನಮ್ಮ ಆಯುಕ್ತ ರು ಗಮನ ಹರಿಸಿ ಬಿಡಿಎ ವಿಚಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಮೂಗು ತೂರಿಸಿ ಬಿಡಿಎ ದಲ್ಲಿ ಅಕ್ರ ಮಕ್ಕೆ ಎಡೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಟ್ಟಿ ದ್ದ ರೆ, ಅವರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಕ್ರ ಮ ಕೈಗೊಳ್ಳ ೋಕೆ ನಮ್ಮ ಆಯುಕ್ತ ರು ಸಮರ್ಥರಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ. ಸಾಕಷ್ಟು ಮಂದಿಯನ್ನು ಜೈಲಿಗೆ 13 C.C.No. 37125/2021 ಕಳುಹಿಸಿದ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ. ದಯವಿಟ್ಟು ತಕ್ಷಣ ಮೋಹನ್ ಇರಲಿ ಯಾರೇ ಇರಬಹುದು ಬ್ರ ೋಕರ್ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಎಫ್ಐಆರ್ ಮಾಡಿ ತನಿಖೆ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು . ಮೊದಲು ತಪ್ಪು ಮಾಡಿರುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತನಿಖೆಯಾಗಬೇಕು. ತನಿಖೆಯಾಗದೇ ಅಪರಾಧಿ ಸ್ಥಾ ನದಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಲ್ಲಿ ಸುವುದು ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ . ಎಲ್ಲಿ ತಪ್ಪು ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ ಎಂಬುದು ನಮ್ಮ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳ ಗಮನಕ್ಕೆ ಬಂದಿದೆ. ತಕ್ಷಣ ಬೇರೆಯವರ ಮೇಲೆ ಮಾಡಿದ ರೀತಿ ತಕ್ಷಣ ಕ್ರ ಮ ಕೈಗೊಳ್ಳ ಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಆಯುಕ್ತ ರಿಗೆ ಮನವಿ ಮಾಡ್ತ ೀನಿ... "
9. In order to prove his case, the complainant got examined himself as PW1, wherein he has reiterated the allegations of complaint. He also got produced the legal notice issued to the accused as per Ex.P1, the postal receipts for having sent said notice to the accused as per Ex.P2 & 3, the postal acknowledgments as to service of said notices on the accused as Ex.P4 & 5, a DVD alleged to be containing the video footage of the live News programme telecasted in the said B-TV channel as Ex.P6 and the corresponding certificate U/sec. 65B of 14 C.C.No. 37125/2021 Indian Evidence Act as Ex.P7, the copy of Writ Petition No.7994/2021, the order sheet and the final order passed by Hon'ble High Court of karnataka in respect of ACB raids on the house & office of the complainant as Ex.P8 to 10. Further, the complainant in support of his case examined one K.S. Kumar, a Civil contractor as PW2, One Suresh, a businessman as PW3, One Karthik, a businessman as PW4 & One Mr. Byregowda, a businessman and relative of the complainant as PW5. All these witnesses PW2 to 5 in their examination in chief deposed in support of the case of the complainant and in corroboration to the testimony of complainant - PW1.
10. Lets examine as to whether the testimony of PW1 to 5 coupled with documentary evidences at Ex.P1 to 10 would prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Before scrutiny & analysis of those evidences lead by the complainant, it appears relevant to state the essential elements/ingredients of offence 15 C.C.No. 37125/2021 of criminal defamation as defined under Sec.499 of IPC. As held by Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Sunilakhya V/s H.M. Jadwet, reported in AIR 1968 Cal 266, the offence of defamation consists of following 3 essential elements/ ingredients; '(1) making or publishing any imputation concerning any person (2) such imputation must have been made by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visual representation and (3) such imputation must have been made with the intention to harm or with knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned. Therefore, the intention to cause harm is the most essential 'sine qua non' of an offence U/sec. 499 of IPC'. More so, in the landmark decision of Hon'ble Apex court on the offence of defamation in the case of Subramanian Swamy V/s Union of India & 16 C.C.No. 37125/2021 Others, reported in (2016) 7 SCC 221, it is also held that 'Causing harm to the reputation of a person is the basis on which the offence is founded and mens rea is a condition precedent to constitute the said offence'.
11. Lets examine as to whether the allegations of the complainant & the evidence adduced & produced by the complainant would satisfy each of the said three important elements or ingredients of criminal defamation.
12. In this regard Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that the accused while giving interview to said news channel has specifically used the name of complainant & referred his imputations to the complainant directly. As such alleged statements made by the accused like " king- pin of corruption in BDA" are per se defamatory. More 17 C.C.No. 37125/2021 over the accused has categorically admitted in his examination under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C about making such statements about the complainant. He also argued that if at all the accused was not referring to the complainant in the alleged statements/imputations, it is he who has to say as to whom he is referring as BDA Mohan or RT Nagar Mohan. Further it is also argued that the accused has intentionally not stepped into witness box to avoid such questions to elicite the truth. On the other hand Ld. Defence counsel has argued that the accused as at the time of giving alleged interview had no knowledge about this complainant. He didn't know the complainant at that particular point of time. It is also admitted by the complainant that he had no acquaintance with the accused earlier to this case. That being the case, it can't be held that the accused 18 C.C.No. 37125/2021 was referring to this complainant & alleged statements were made against this complainant that too with the intention of harming his reputation. Further as the accused was the then Chairman of BDA, being responsible for proper functioning of office of BDA, he was planing to curb the corrupt activities & illegalities therein at the hands of some agents in collusion with BDA officials. As such he was giving said interview to the media, wherein he has referred about role of some agents in BDA in such corrupt activities including one Mohan who is called as BDA Mohan & R.T Nagar Mohan as per his information. As could be seen in the said interview the accused categorically says that he don't know who is said BDA Mohan or RT Nagar Mohan. More so, the complainant also clearly denied in his cross- examination that he is popularly know as BDA 19 C.C.No. 37125/2021 Mohan or Rt nagar Mohan. That being the case, it can't be held that alleged statements of the accused were referring to this complainant. As such when the accused was unaware of the complainant, question of developing any good or bad intention about him doesn't arise.
13. In the light of the rival contentions of both side, on analyzing the testimony of Pw1, it appears very clear that the complainant-Pw1 has categorically denies that he is popularly known as BDA Mohan or RT nagar Mohan. He has stated that except Mohan Kumar there are no other names for him. Further when the plaint copy of the suit filed by him in O.S.No.1111/2021( marked as Ex.D1) was confronted to him & shown that in the said plaint at para No.4 it is stated as " the plaintiff is popularly known as RT nagar Mohan alias BDA Mohan among 20 C.C.No. 37125/2021 his friends circle" ( marked as Ex.D1(a) ), he states that that is not his name, but as in media said name had come, he wrongly shown it in the plaint. That apart, when para No.8 of the said plaint was confronted to him as per Ex.D1(b), wherein it is stated " on 10.02.2021 the 4th defendant published a news article and 18th defendant begun airing promotion slides & videos from 7.00 AM onwards stating that they are going to make an expose regarding a person RT Nagar Mohan who they allege is a BDA broker & is master mind of several scams in the BDA", he categorically says that he has no such names like RT Nagar Mohan & BDA Mohan. Further he also admits that as his photo was not displayed in the promotion slides & videos that were being aired on that day at 7.00 AM by 18th defendant in the said suit, there was no circumstance to infer that said RT 21 C.C.No. 37125/2021 Nagar Mohan named in the said slides was himself. More so, he also admitted that in the news article published by 4th defendant in the said suit also his photo was not published. Thus it is very clear that the complainant himself denies that his name is RT Nagar Mohan or BDA Mohan, which was referred in the alleged speech in the interview given by the accused.
14. Similarly, the complainant-Pw1 himself admitted in his cross-examination at page 15 that on 10.02.2021 while giving alleged interview to said channel, the accused was not referring to his photo. More so, he also says that he don't know as to whether his photo was displayed in the said Tv channel at the time of accused giving said interview and the same was within the knowledge of the accused while giving said interview. That apart the 22 C.C.No. 37125/2021 complainant-Pw1 himself in his examination in chief categorically states that while giving alleged interview the accused says that he has not seen said Mohan, don't know where is he & what is he doing. When the accused specifically stated that he was not knowing as to who is said BDA mohan or RT Nagar Mohan, but stating about such a person as per his information, it can't be expected of him to say who is said BDA Mohan or RT Nagar Mohan as argued by the counsel for the complainant. More so, it is well established position of under criminal law that the accused need not to step into the witness box to defend his case and as such no adverse inference against him could be drawn. From all the above it is evident that according to the complainant himself he is not said RT Nagar Mohan or BDA Mohan and also that the accused while giving alleged interview 23 C.C.No. 37125/2021 referring to said RT nagar Mohan & BDA Mohan and the accused had not seen said Mohan & was not having knowledge about his whereabouts at the time of giving alleged interview. That being the case, it may not be possible to hold that the accused was giving alleged statements against this complainant in the said interview.
15. Further , the Pw2 also says in his evidence that there are no such nick names/ other names for the complainant except Mohan Kumar. Though this witness says that the photo of complainant was being displayed in the news channel, he categorically admits that accused was not referring to any such photo while giving alleged interview. Similarly, the Pw5 also deposed that the complainant is not called as RT nagar Mohan. The Pw4 in his testimony states 24 C.C.No. 37125/2021 that at the time of giving alleged interview the accused was holding photo of the complainant. But he says there is no evidence to show that accused was holding & showing the photo of complainant in the said interview. He admits that no materials are produced to substantiate the same. Even the complainant himself has not stated anything about the accused holding any such photo during said interview. More so, none of the other witnesses Pw2 to 3 & 5 who claimed to had viewed said programme in the said TV channel, have not whispered anything in that regard. Even in the video footage of alleged programme telecasted in the B-TV channel, which is produced at Ex.P6 by the complainant himself, there appear no such scene of accused holding or showing any photo of the complainant. Thus it appears very 25 C.C.No. 37125/2021 clear that what is stated by Pw4 in his cross- examination is not true.
16. Apart from all the above, it is pertinent to note that in the course of cross-examination of Pw1 to 5 the defence counsel has successfully elicited several facts which create doubt on the credibility of all these witnesses & shake their credit worthiness.
17. The Pw1 in his examination in chief states that there is no any kind of relation between himself & BDA, he is not having any business with BDA and also till date not visited said BDA office. But in his cross-examination at page 9 he has categorically admitted that in the suit filed by him against the media as per Ex.D1 at para 4 & 5 he has stated that as an RTI activist he goes to BDA office & work as a representative of common people. Similarly in his 26 C.C.No. 37125/2021 cross-examination at page 13 he categorically deposes that he has been doing real estate business. But he has not disclosed the same either in his complaint or examination in chief. It appears that in concealing said facts, he might had an intention to conceal his links with BDA & real estate. Further in his examination in chief he has stated that the accused had appeared before said B-TV channel & gave alleged interview. But, in his cross-examination when it was asked as to whether he has produced any materials to show that the accused had appeared before said Channel for giving said interview, he changes his version & says that the accused had given a live interview to said channel, but he has wrongly stated in his examination in chief that the accused appeared before said channel. This explanation though could be accepted in the normal 27 C.C.No. 37125/2021 course of things, it can't be accepted in respect of this complainant. Because as admitted by himself he has not only stated so in his examination in chief, but also in his sworn statement under Sec.200 of Cr.P.C recorded by this court & the legal notice given to accused prior to filing this complaint. If at all he has wrongly or by mistake stated so in his legal notice, he could have rectified it in his sworn statement and even in his examination in chief. All these circumstances would create doubt about the credibility of Pw1 & credit worthiness of his testimony.
18. With regard to Pw2, it is pertinent to note that in his examination in chief he says complainant has not involved in any business relating to BDA office. But in his cross-examination says that he is not having any information as to whether the 28 C.C.No. 37125/2021 complainant does any work other than social service. If so, how could he say that the complainant has not involved in any business relating to BDA office?. More over, as stated by Pw2 himself in his cross- examination, himself & the complainant are friends since 25 years. If so, how he don't know as to the complainant doing any other works. This kind of irreconcilable versions of this witness create doubt about the credibility of his testimony. The Pw4 in his cross-examination says that he knows complainant since 2009 and also says that till 2017, himself & his uncle used to meet complainant once in 6 months & after 2017 used to meet him once in 2-3 months. He also says that the complainant used to talk with him regarding providing computers & Lap-tops to students. But he says he has no knowledge about the occupation of complainant, which can't be accepted. 29 C.C.No. 37125/2021 Because, normally when a prudent man does any such business of selling computers & Lap-tops would have knowledge about the customer that too with such a long period of acquaintance for more than 15 years. That apart as already discussed herein above, this witness has falsely deposed that the accused was holding the photo of complainant & also referring said photo of the complainant while giving alleged interview without any materials or evidences in support of the same. That too when it is not the case of the very complainant. A such testimony of this witness also appear to be not creditworthy.
19. The PW5 in his evidence says that the accused was intentionally giving such statements against the complainant. But in his cross- examination he categorically says that accused Vishwanath is not known to him. More so, he says 30 C.C.No. 37125/2021 that he don't know as to whether there has been any friendship or enmity between said Vishwanath & the complainant. If so, when he don't know accused and also not having any knowledge about any friendship or enmity between accused & the complainant, how come he infer any such bad or good intention or motive on the part of the accused as against the complainant.
20. Apart from the above there is no consistency in the testimony of these witnesses PW1 to 5 in relation to the occupation of complainant. As already discussed herein above, the Pw1 in his complaint as well as evidence not stated about doing any real estate business. But when the averments in the plaint at Ex.D1 were confronted to him, he admits that he has stated therein as to doing real estate business. The PW2 says that the complainant is not 31 C.C.No. 37125/2021 involved in any matters related to BDA office. The PW3 says that the complainant is doing real estate business for his livelily-hood. Other witnesses PW3 & 4 in their examination in chief have not whispered anything about the complainant doing real estate business and also in their cross-examination categorically stated that they don't know about real estate business of the complainant.
21. From all the above discussed evidences of PW1 to 5 coupled with documentary evidences like the vedio footage of alleged programme that was telecasted in the said B-TV Channel, it is evident that the complainant has clearly denied that he is known by the name BDA mohan or RT Nagar Mohan and he is not having any business relating to said BDA matters. But in the entire interview given by the accused in the said B-Tv channel, he was referring a 32 C.C.No. 37125/2021 person popularly known as BDA Mohan & RT Nagar Mohan, but not Mohan Kumar. If so, said reference to BDA Mohan or RT Nagar Mohan in the interview cannot be claimed by the complainant as referred to him, unless he admits that he is also know or called by said names BDA Mohan or RT Nagar Mohan. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the complainant that though the accused don't know complainant, it is enough if he was referring him in the alleged interview to identify the complainant by public holds no water.
22. Further as already discussed herein above, the complainant in his evidence says that as his photo was being displayed during the alleged telecast of said interview in the said B-TV channel, he came to know that the accused was saying about him. But he has not produced any material as to whether his 33 C.C.No. 37125/2021 photo was being shown at the instance of the accused. More so, in his cross-examination he has categorically stated that he had not made any attempt to know as who did give his photo to said channel. He also says he has not given any notice to said TV channel seeking said information. More so, the anchor or editor of said news channel is neither arrayed as an accused or witness to testify the same. More over as already stated herein above admittedly at the time of alleged interview the accused was specifically saying that he has not seen said Mohan, he don't know as to where he is & what is he doing. That being the case unless it is proved that said photo of the complainant was displayed during the telecast of said recorded interview in the said TV channel at the instance of this accused or that said photo was provided to said channel by this accused, 34 C.C.No. 37125/2021 the complainant cannot claim that the names BDA Mohan & RT Nagar Mohan referred in the alleged interview by the accused refer to himself. Therefore, the evidence lead by the complainant though establishes the second essential element of offence of defamation i.e., such imputation must have been made by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visual representation, it would not satisfy the first & third essential elements of the offence of defamation ie making or publishing any imputation concerning any person & said imputation must have been made with the intention to harm or with knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned. Because, any such imputation must have been made against any particular & referable/identifiable person. When the person 35 C.C.No. 37125/2021 named BDA Mohan or RT Nagr Mohan as referred to in the alleged interview can't be referable to complainant, it would not satisfy first ingredient of the offence of defamation.
23. In this regard Ld counsel for the complainant has argued that while examination under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C, the accused has admitted that he has given alleged statement against the complainant. Therefore, it is admitted fact that alleged statements were made as against the present complainant. No doubt, as rightly argued by the Ld counsel for the complainant, the accused while answering the questions during his examination under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C said 'yes' to the second question put to him about he making such allegations. But that itself cannot be considered as a material admission. Because, an admission of a fact 36 C.C.No. 37125/2021 cannot be decided on a stray word or sentence, rather it should be construed from entire evidence/testimony or speech. As such in the present case, it is the specific defence of the accused that he was not having knowledge about the complainant or who is said BDA Mohan or RT Nagar Mohan and it is also admitted by the complainant in his evidence that during alleged interview the accused was saying so. That being the case, it may not be proper to consider said stray admission by one word 'Yes' by the accused in the course of his examination under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C, as an admission of the fact that he was referring to this complainant in the alleged interview.
24. Therefore, when the alleged statements made by the accused in the said interview are not referable to the complainant herein, he cannot be an 'aggrieved person' as contemplated U/sec. 199 of 37 C.C.No. 37125/2021 Cr.P.C., which is an exception to the General rule that a criminal complaint can be filed by anyone irrespective of whether he is an aggrieved person or not. Sec.199 of Cr.P.C., mandates that the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence of defamation only upon a complaint by a person who is aggrieved. As such, when the present complainant cannot be described as the 'person aggrieved' within the meaning of Sec.199(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., he cannot maintain a criminal complaint against the accused in respect of alleged statement made by the accused in the said interview. On this score also the complaint filed by the complainant in this case is not maintainable.
25. With regard to third ingredient ie. said imputation must have been made with the intention to harm or with knowledge or having reason to believe 38 C.C.No. 37125/2021 that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned, when alleged statement or imputation could not be referable to complainant, question of intention of the accused to harm the reputation of this complainant would not arise. Because, a person can develop a good or bad intention only on a person whom he knows or about who he is having some knowledge. When he don't know such person or don't have any knowledge about such person , there can not be any chances of such person developing any good or bad intention and doing anything or saying anything under such intention.
26. Under english law Intention is generally defined in terms of foresight of particular consequences and a desire to act or fail to act so that those consequence occur. The intent is a mental attitude with which individual acts, and thus it cannot ordinarily be 39 C.C.No. 37125/2021 directly proved, but must be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances. Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted. Motive and Intention are many times used interchangeably but they are very different from each other. The main difference between intention and motive is that intention is the mental state of the accused i.e., what's going on in his mind while he is committing the crime, while motive is the motivation i.e., what drives a person to commit or refrain from doing something.
27. Further, in judging whether the accused had such intention or knowledge, the circumstances under which and the main object with which such imputations or defamatory statements were made or published are material as held by Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Chaithan Charan Dass V/s Raghunath Singh, reported in AIR 1959 Ori 141. 40 C.C.No. 37125/2021
28. In the light of the dictum of the Hon'ble High Courts and the Hon'ble Apex court in the decisions stated supra, it is very clear that the intention of the accused to cause harm to the complainant is the most essential element of an offence of defamation. More so, in understanding or judging such an intention of the accused, it is material to look into the circumstances under which and the object with which such defamatory imputations or remarks or statements were made or published.
29. Apart from all the above the defence counsel has contended in his written arguments that the accused being the chairman of said BDA having been appointed under the BDA Act,1976 and also as an elected member of Legislative Assembly of the State, is a public servant as per Sec.21 of IPC as well as Sec.58 of The BDA Act,1976. As such as the alleged 41 C.C.No. 37125/2021 interview was given by the accused as a public authority in the interest of public & public Office, in the course of discharge of his public duties, the complainant was bound to take sanction prior to prosecuting the accused in respect of alleged statements in the said interview. But he has not obtained any such prior sanction in this case and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. He has relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Hemanth Nimbalkar Vs. Sri. Hon'ble retired Justice N. Santosh Hegde & others, reported in ILR 2014 KAR 3294. On the other hand counsel for the complainant has argued that alleged act of the accused in giving such interview & making such defamatory statements against a person in public cant be considered as the act done in his official capacity, that too when he was 42 C.C.No. 37125/2021 giving said interview out side the office of BDA. More so, if at all he was acting in his official capacity, he should have taken actions against the complainant or said BDA Mohan or RT Nagar Mohan as the case may be as claimed by him in his interview. But till date no such action against anybody including the complainant is taken by him. That being the case his act cannot be considered as an act in his official capacity. More over, if at all the accused is aggrieved by the same, he should have challenged the very order of taking cognizance. In the light of these rival contentions on analyzing alleged statements made by the accused in the said interview and the subsequent inaction on the part of the accused in respect of alleged illegalities, it can be held that said statements of the accused may not fall under the category of acts done in the course of discharge of official duties. More 43 C.C.No. 37125/2021 over, as rightly argued by the counsel for the complainant, if at all any such sanction is required it was required at the time of taking cognizance of the offence by the court. But rightly or wrongly this court has already taken cognizance of the offence and proceeded with the trial & concluded. At this stage if any such contention is considered, it would amount to review of its own order by this court, which is not permissible under criminal law. As such the only option that was available to the accused was to challenge the order taking cognizance of the offence. But he has not done so. Hence he cannot rise said issue now. As such this contention of the defence counsel would not sustain.
30. Further Ld. counsel for the complainant by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Subramanian Swamy V/s Union of India & 44 C.C.No. 37125/2021 Others, reported in (2016) 7 SCC 221, also contended that the alleged statements made by the accused would not come under any of the exceptions to Sec.499 of IPC & if the accused pleads any such defences, the burden of proving the same lies on him. But with due respect to the contention raised by Ld counsel for the complainant, it is pertinent to note that the defence counsel has not raised any such defences under any of the exceptions to Sec.499 of IPC either in the course of trial or in his arguments. As such it may not necessitate for discussing on that issue.
31. In view of all the above discussed reasons, it can be concluded that no such intention to harm the reputation of the complainant could be gathered or judged from the alleged speech/ statement / 45 C.C.No. 37125/2021 imputations, rather an intention to appraise the media & the public about the corrupt activities in the office of BDA in collusion with some private agents like one so called BDA Mohan or RT Nagar Mohan could be gathered. As such the allegations of the complaint as well as the oral & documentary evidences adduced & produced by the complainant, would not satisfy the ingredients of alleged offence P/U/Sec.500 of IPC and as such it can be concluded that the complainant has failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Sec.499 of IPC beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
32. Point No.2- In view of the above findings on point No.1, the following order is passed; 46 C.C.No. 37125/2021
ORDER Acting under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code.
Bail bond and surety bond of the accused shall stand canceled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, after her typing, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court this the 26th day of June, 2025).
(K.N. SHIVAKUMAR) XLII Addl. CJM,Bengaluru (Spl.Court for trial of cases filed against sitting as well as former MPs/MLAs, triable by the Magistrate in the State of Karnataka) ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Prosecution:
PW.1 - Mohan Kumar PW.2 - K.S. Kumar PW.3 - Suresh PW.4 - Karthik PW.5 - Byregowda Documents exhibited for the Prosecution:
Ex.P1 - Legal Notice
Ex.P2 & 3 - Postal Receipts
Ex.P4 & 5 - Postal Acknowledgments
Ex.P6 - C.D
47 C.C.No. 37125/2021
Ex.P7 - Certificate U/sec. 65B of Evidence Act
Ex.8 - C/c of W.P. No. 7994/2022
Ex.9 - C/c of Order sheet in W.P. No. 7994/2022
Ex.10 - C/c of Order in W.P. No. 7994/2022
Witnesses examined for the Defence:
- Nil -
Documents exhibited for the defence:
Ex.D1 - C/c of Plaint in O.S. No.1111/2021 Ex.D1(a) - C/c of Plaint in O.S. No.1111/2021 the said part of paragraph No.4. Ex.D1(b) - C/c of Plaint in O.S. No.1111/2021 the said part of paragraph No.8. Ex.D2 - C/c of Complaint in PCR No.9029/2021 Material objections:
- Nil -
(K.N. SHIVAKUMAR) XLII Addl. CJM,Bengaluru (Spl.Court for trial of cases filed against sitting as well as former MPs/MLAs, triable by the Magistrate in the State of Karnataka) 48 C.C.No. 37125/2021 (Judgment pronounced in open court Vide Separate Judgment ) ORDER Acting under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code.
Bail bond and surety bond of the accused shall stand canceled.
( K.N. SHIVAKUMAR ) XLII Addl. CJM,Bengaluru (Spl.Court for trial of cases filed against sitting as well as former MPs/MLAs, triable by the Magistrate in the State of Karnataka) 49 C.C.No. 37125/2021