Sajjala Rama Krishna Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 9797 AP

      HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI

              MAIN CASE No. Crl.P.No.10205 of 2022
                          PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.                                                                  Office
                                      ORDER

No   DATE                                                            Note
1. 21.12.2022 RRR, J

                                   I.A.No.1 of 2022

Dispense with application is allowed.

_________ RRR, J Crl.P.No.10205 of 2022 Learned Public Prosecutor has taken notice on the 1st respondent and seeks time to obtain instructions.

Issue notice to the 2nd respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to take out personal notice to the 2nd respondent by RPAD and file proof of service by the next date of hearing.

Post on 23.01.2023.

The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.9 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari for an offence under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code.

The allegations in the complaint are that various scandalous and defamatory articles were published in a newspaper against the 2nd respondent herein between 13.03.2018 to

16.03.2018 and the 1st petitioner (accused No.2) as Managing Director of the Publishing Company and the 2nd petitioner (accused No.3) as the Editorial Director of the newspaper were responsible for the said defamation.

The complaint was filed under Section 199(2) r/w 200 of Cr.P.C by the Public Prosecutor, on the ground that the 2nd respondent was a public servant whose conduct was put in question and thereby the 2nd respondent was defamed.

The petitioners have approached this Court to quash the said complaint.

Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri N. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the very cognizance of the case itself is bad. He would submit that the cognizance of the case by a Court in a private complaint of this nature requires the Court to assign reasons for taking cognizance. In the absence of such reasons, the complaint itself would have to be quashed. He relies upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2002 (6) SCC 670 and 2021 SCC Online SC 806.

Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel would also submit that the 1st petitioner had ceased to be a Director of the Publishing

Company itself on 11.06.2015 and Form-12, in relation to the said resignation, was filed before the Registrar of the Companies on 06.08.2015.

In such circumstances, the case against the 1st petitioner cannot be continued. The case against the 2nd petitioner would also have to be quashed as the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 stipulates, in Section 7, that the presumption of defamation, in relation to any report published in a newspaper, can be raised only against the Editor. A further contention is raised that the complaint ought to have been filed by the 2nd respondent himself as the provisions of Section 199 (2) of Cr.P.C would not be available in the present case. It is contended that the allegations raised in the said news reports are not in relation to the functions of the 2nd respondent and are on the question of collusion with the elected representatives to cause loss to the State. It is submitted that in such circumstances Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C. would not applicable. Reliance is placed on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2018 (6) SCC 676.

Prima facie, the Form-12 filed before the Registrar of Companies, absolves the 1st petitioner from the offence of defamation as he was neither a Director nor the Managing Director of the Publishing Company during the time when

the articles were published. Similarly, the question of whether the Editorial Director of a publication can be compared with the position of Editor, set out under Section 7 of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 also requires further consideration in the matter.

For the aforesaid said reasons, the proceedings in C.C.No.9 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Eluru, West Godavari is stayed, including the appearance of the petitioners, pending further orders.

__________ RRR, J BSM/NNN