Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioner had no mens rea in making the social media publication.

42.5. Prosecution is malafide since inception. It is argued that the petitioner is a Journalist. He cannot be persecuted by the State, in the manner as it is being done. The authors of the Whatsapp messages are not being inquired; nobody denies the authenticity of the Whatsapp messages. State says that it is irrelevant and it itself is malafide. Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the communication dated 07.07.2020 in which first informant has admitted that his bank accounts numbers were revealed and based on it, it is argued that it is an admission that in the Whatsapp messages his account numbers were revealed, which it is argued, were given to Amratesh Singh Chauhan by TSRCM.

46.2. The Whatsapp messageswhich have been referred to on behalf of the petitioners cannot be read into evidence. They are irrelevant; the Whatsapp messages were between two people, who are not before the court; the genuineness, reliability ortruthfulness of the Whatsapp messages is still questioned; it is an electronic record; there is no certificate with regard to their authenticity. In fact, certain Whatsapp messages have been referred to, to argue that apparently they appear to be doubtful.

105.2. In the social media publication, there were many other allegations, there were WhatsApp messages exchanged allegedly between TSRCM and Amratesh Singh Chauhan.

The Inquiry Officer did not examine those issues. He did not examine the credibility, veracity or genuineness of the WhatsApp messages or the telephonic conversation allegedly made between Amratesh Singh Chauhan and Rajesh Sharma as also between media advisers to TSRCM and Amratesh Singh Chauhan.

131. Again when on 21.08.2020, the IO required the petitioner to submit the original document. Again the same reply, which had already been given by the petitioner on 17.08.2020, was given to the IO by the petitioner on 26.08.2020. The reply dated 17.08.2020, annexure 6 to the counter affidavit of the State, has been discussed during the course of arguments. In fact, it is categorical reply to the queries made by the IO. The details of Whatsapp messages and in para 2, the petitioner states that these information were given by Amratesh Singh Chauhan to Rajesh Sharma through Whatsapp and Amratesh Singh Chauhan advised them that the informant is brother in law of TSRCM. The Whatsapp messages, telephone conversation, everything was provided by the petitioner to the IO and in his communication dated 17.08.2020, the petitioner further reiterated that everything was filed by him in WPCRL No.2113 of 2018. This cannot be said to be non-cooperation by the petitioner.