Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Samik Ghosh & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 17 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SIDDHARTHA ROY CHOWDHURY
CRR 3820 of 2006
SAMIK GHOSH & ORS.
VS.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Somopriyo Roychowdhury, Adv.
Mr. S. Dutta
For the Opposite Parties : None appear
Hearing concluded on : 4th November, 2022
Judgement on : 17th November, 2022
Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.:
1. Samik Ghosh a reporter of Annadabazar Patrika - a Bengali Daily
prepared a report under the heading "Panchil Bhenge Jami Dakhal.
Dadar Douratme Dal-o- Chup", "Forceful possession of land by
breaking the boundary wall, the party is maintaining silence against
the highhandedness of Dada." Report was published on 25th November,
2004 under the banner "Dadagiri".
2. Background
of such report was the policy taken by the competent
authority, being flooded with letters received by the newspaper office
from people of different locality indicating the highhandedness of local
leaders. The newspaper authority depending on the gravity of the
allegations decided to investigate and to submit the investigative
report. One such report is the subject matter of this lis, where
allegation against Madan Mohan Manna happened to be the leader of
Nischinda Local Committee of a particular political party. According to
Madan Mohan Manna the report published in the newspaper was full
of baseless allegations and prepared with imputation to lower down his
prestige, being instigated by Binoy Majumder, the next door neighbour.
It was reported that Sri Manna was illegally occupying the land of
neighbouring people with the help of his associates, assaulting people
without any reason, misbehaving with the female persons. By using
muscle power he had taken control of a 50 years old club drove out the
members. But the leaders of the District Committee, maintained
silence and when confronted with such allegations, Madan Mohan
Manna stated that such allegations were politically motivated.
3. But according to the reporter the neighbouring people however,
were propagating views contrary to the claim of Madan Mohan Manna.
The reporter cited an example of Mr. Binoy Majumder a retired Railway
employee and next door neighbour of Madan Mohan Manna. According
to Binay Majumdar, on 3rd March, 2003, Madan Mohan Manna came
to his house along with his associates, broke down the boundary wall
and took possession of the land he owned. When Binay Babu raised
objection he and his family members were manhandled and assaulted.
Samik Ghosh, the Reporter drew attention of Madan Mohan Manna
about such allegation and rubbishing all such allegations Madan
Mohan Manna told the reporter that he wanted to get the property
surveyed by the Government Surveyor. He would abide by such report.
Binoy Majumder told the reporter that as his boundary wall was
dismantled and they were assaulted, he went to local Police Station at
Bally but nothing was done by the police, so he had to file a case. After
filing of the case Binoy Majumder and his family members got
intimidated by Madan Babu. The female folks of the locality told the
reporter that Madan Babu drove away the members of a local club and
took over the control of the club with his henchmen, who were hurling
indecent words towards them. However, according to Madan Mohan
Manna, his political rivals were speaking lead of him. He was being
accorded with respect by his neighbours and there was reciprocation
from his end. The reporter further stated that the inhabitants of the
locality lodged a complaint with the highest level of the State
Administration as well as with the leaders of Mandamohan Manna, one
Minister of State and some leaders of Howrah District Committee of
CPM called the local people and listened to the grievances they made.
4. On 29th November, 2004, Madan Mohan Manna filed a complaint
which was registered as Case No. 1392 of 2004 against five accused
persons. Learned Judicial Magistrate was pleased to take cognizance of
the case and directed the Officer-in-charge of Bally Police Station to
enquire into the matter under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and to submit
a report; subsequently learned Magistrate issued process under
Section 500/120B of the I.P.C. upon the accused persons.
5. Challenging the order passed on 3rd January, 2006 by the learned
Court of Judicial Magistrate, Howrah. Samik Ghosh and Aveek Sarkar
being the Reporter and Editor of Anandabazar Patrika respectively and
accused no. 3, Managing Director of Satellite Printing Private Limited
filed the application seeking order of quashment of the proceeding as
against them.
6. Assailing the impugned order Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned
Senior Counsel submits that to constitute of offence of defamation as
provided under Section 499 of the I.P.C. there has to have an
imputation and such imputation shall have to be made with the
intention of harming or knowing or having reasons to believe that it
would harm reputation of the person or group of person about whom it
is made. The Reporter, Mr. Samik Ghosh did not subscribe his
personal opinion anywhere in the report. He brought the allegations
leveled against Madan Mohan Manna by his neighbours to the notice of
Sri Manna and invited his comments and confronted the neighbours
including female folks of the locality with the statement given by
Madan Mohan Manna. There is nothing to show that he had any
intention to expose the complainant to public hatred or ridicule. The
report published in a newspaper, in my humble opinion is a piece of
objective journalism and not defamation per se. Therefore, in the
absence of basic ingredients required to constitute offence under
Section 499 of the I.P.C. learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had no
reason to issue process under Section 500/501/34 of the I.P.C. against
the petitioners.
7. Section 499 of the I.P.C. defines defamation.
"499. Defamation.--Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to
be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or
publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm,
or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will
harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases
hereinafter expected, to defame that person.
Explanation 1.--It may amount to defamation to impute anything to
a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of
that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of
his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2.--It may amount to defamation to make an
imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of
persons as such.
Explanation 3.--An imputation in the form of an alternative or
expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4.--No imputation is said to harm a person's reputa-
tion, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of
others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or
lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his
calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed
that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state
generally considered as disgraceful.
First Exception.--Imputation of truth which public good requires to
be made or published.--It is not defamation to impute anything
which is true concerning any person, if it be 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.
Second Exception.--Public conduct of public servants.--It is not
defamation to express in a good faith any opinion whatever re-
specting 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.
Third Exception.--Conduct of any person touching 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 character
appears in that conduct, and no further.
Fourth Exception.--Publication of reports of proceedings of Courts.--
It is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the
proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such
proceedings.
Explanation.--A Justice of the Peace or other officer holding an
inquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice, is a
Court within the meaning of the above section.
Fifth Exception.--Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of
witnesses and others concerned.--It is not defamation to express in
good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case,
civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or
respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in
any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as
his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Sixth Exception.--Merits of public performance.--It is not defamation
to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any
performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the
public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his
character appears in such performance, and no further.
Explanation.--A performance may be substituted to the judgment of
the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply
such submission to the judgment of the public.
Seventh Exception.--Censure passed in good faith by person having
lawful authority over another.--It is not defamation in a person
having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising
out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith
any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such
lawful authority relates.
Eighth Exception.--Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised
person.--It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation
against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over
that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.
Illustration If A in good faith accuse Z before a Magistrate; if A in
good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Z's master; if
A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, and child, to Z's
father--A is within this exception.
Ninth Exception.--Imputation made in good faith by person for
protection of his or other's interests.--It is not defamation to make
an imputation on the character of another provided that the
imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of
the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.
Tenth Exception.--Caution intended for good of person to whom
conveyed or for public good.--It is not defamation to convey a
caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that
such caution be intended for 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."
8. It is trite to say that to constitute an offence within the meaning of
Section 499 of the I.P.C. there has to be imputation which is the basic
requirement and such imputation shall have to be made in the manner
as provided in the provision with the intention of causing harm or
having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation
of the person about whom it is made. Causing harm to the imputation
of a person is the basis on which this offence of defamation is founded
and like every criminal proceeding mens rea is a condition precedent to
constitute such offence.
9. Upon perusal of statement made by the Opposite Party as
Complainant before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, I do not find
anything to suggest that the petitioners had intended or known or had
reason to believe that the report penned, edited and published would
harm reputation of Sri Manna.
10. The criminal offence, it goes without saying emphasis on the
intention of harm. Section 44 of the Indian Penal Code defines injury
and it denotes any harm whatever illegally caused any person in body,
mind, reputation or property. In the absence of any ingredient prima
facie to show the mens rea of the accused persons to have the
intention, knowledge or reason to believe that the reort published in
the daily newspaper, an offence within the meaning of Section 499 of
the I.P.C. cannot be said to have been made out.
11. Therefore, in my humble opinion learned Judicial Magistrate,
Howrah has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested upon him by issuing
the process against the petitioners which amounts to abuse of process.
The order impugned should not be allowed to remain in force and
should be set aside which I accordingly do by exercising the inherent
jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
With this observation this Criminal Revision is disposed of.
12. Let a copy of this judgement be sent to learned Judicial
Magistrate, Howrah for information and taking necessary action.
13. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgement, if applied
therefor, should be made available to the parties upon compliance with
the requisite formalities.
(SIDDHARTHA ROY CHOWDHURY, J.)
