Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Prosecution witness no. 5 Partha Das knows the organization and had high regard for this organization prior to reading the article which lowered the prestige of the accused.

Defence witness The defence has examined Sri Nikhil Kumar Basu, Sub-Inspector of Police, Detective Department, Lalbazer as on 18.03.1983 as DW 1. This witness on oath has deposed that Pulinbehari Mondal father of Shasanka Sekhar Mondal, the missing boy produced an inland letter, written by Shasanka from Ananda Marga Training Centre, Benaras. This witness recorded the G.D. Entry No. 919 dated 21.03.1983. He recorded the statement of Pulinbehari Mondal and took a search warrant for recovery of Shasanka Sekhar Mondal. He then along with Pulinbehari Mondal went to Benaras and took the assistance of local police and rescued Shasanka Sekhar Mondal on identification by his father Pulinbehari Mondal from the Ananda Marga Training Centre, P.S. Lanka, Benaras as per search list (Exhibit A) in presence of local witnesses. The seizure was made in presence of Acharya Sarbatmanda Avodhuta, the in- charge of the said Ashram. G.D. regarding the recovery was made at Lanka P.S. and on completion of formalities the boy was handed over to his father Pulinbehari Mondal by S.D.J.M. Alipore on proper bond. This witness has produced the statement of Pulinbehari Mondal and the missing boy Shasanka Sekhar Mondal. On being cross examined this witness has categorically stated that from the search list it can be seen that it has been noted that the said premises has been described as Ananda Marga Seva Dharma Mission, Village Chitapur, P.O. Sundarpur, P.S. Lanka, District- Benaras, Uttar Pradesh. This witness has admitted in cross examination that Exhibit A, the search list shows that there is an endorsement that the institution is Seva Dharma Mission and not Ananda Marga. On careful perusal of Exhibit A the search list which is the most important document in the present case, it is seen that the side ways writing is it in a different handwriting. It has been noted side ways to this effect but this witness has stated that he cannot say who has written the same. On plain examination of the said search list it is seen that said note is in a handwriting which is in a total different handwriting from the entry made by DW 1. It is written side ways and DW 1 could not say who has written the same. The note is also not complete, as such the said handwriting written by some unknown person becomes doubtful. More so because of the fact that in the search list, it has been clearly written by DW 1 that the place from where the missing boy was recovered is Ananda Marga Seva Dharma Mission, Village Chitapur, P.O. Sundarpur, P.S. Lanka, District- Benaras, Uttar Pradesh. As such there is no denial that the place from where the boy was recovered is also known as Seva Dharma Mission. But it is an institution of Ananda Marga. It has also been clearly written during recovery by DW 1 who conducted the search that the boy was rescued from the custody of Acharya Sarbatmanda Avodhuta of Ananda Marga Ashram (Seva Dharma Mission) P.O. Sundarpur, P.S. Lanka, District- Benaras, Uttar Pradesh. As such it is very clear that the placed from where the boy was recovered is Ananda Marga Ashram Seva Dharma Mission and the same is clearly noted in the search list. The documents marked Exhibit before the Trial Court is as follows:-

For complainant Exhibit Description of Exhibits Exhibit 1 Petition of complaint no. C1201/83.

Exhibit 2 The relevant publication dated 20.04.83 in paper 'Jugantar'.

                                 For defence

          Exhibit A      Search list.

      Exhibit B and C    Remand petitions.

          Exhibit D      Statment of Pulinbehari Mondal.

          Exhibit E      Statement of missing boy Shasanka Sekhar

                         Mondal has been also marked Exhibit.

          Exhibit F      The inland letter sent by Shasanka Sekhar

                         Mondal to Pulinbehari Mondal has also been

                         marked as Exhibit.




Analysis of evidence

Conclusion The defence case before the Trial Court is that they received the news from their authorized agent and taking it to be true they published the same having no malice against the complainant organization. The news item has been published on good faith and public interest.

The father of the missing boy Shasanka Sekhar Mondal has produced one inland letter written by his son from Ananda Marga Training Centre, Varanasi and accordingly, he made a G.D. Entry and lodged a complaint and on search warrant being issued they proceeded to Varanasi for rescuing the said boy and with the help of Uttar Pradesh Police, the boy was rescued from the Ananda Marga Training Centre and a search list (Exhibit A) was duly prepared, signed by witnesses and the statement of the boy was recorded (Exhibit E). The boy was produced before the learned Munsiff, Varanasi and later produced before the S.D.J.M., Alipore and on April 18, 1983, the boy was handed over to his father. The premise from where the boy was recovered by the Police was described in the search list (Exhibit A) as Ananda Marga Seva Dharma Mission, Benaras. It has been clearly written that the place of recovery was Ananda Marga Seva Dharma Mission and from the head of the institute at Benaras namely Acharya Sarbatmanda Avodhuta. The said publication was made taking it to be true and in good faith and the accused persons did not have any mens rea or intention to harm the reputation of the organization. Exhibit A shows that the place from where the boy was recovered is noted as Ananda Marga Seva Dharma Mission, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.

The learned Magistrate also took into consideration Exhibit (D) and (E), which corroborates the statement as made by the missing boy. The complainant's father's case is that the boy and his father were not examined and the said publication without proper verification has defamed the complainant and his organization.

The learned Trial Court rightly held that it is clear from the search list Exhibit (A) and Exhibits (B to E) and from the evidence of the DW-1, the Officer who recovered the boy that the said boy was recovered from Seva Dharma Misson of Ananda Marga at Varanasi. The learned Magistrate then held that the publication in this case has been done on the basis that it was true and also supported by the search list (Exhibit A) and on evidence of DW-1 to the effect that the boy was recovered from Seva Dharma Mission of Ananda Marga Ashram. No documents or evidence was produced by the complainant to support his statement that the said Seva Dharma Mission at Varanasi is not connected with the complainant's organization.