Accused Nos.7 And 8 vs Joy Joseph
2021 Latest Caselaw 1214 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

   WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942

                        Crl.MC.No.7205 OF 2014

          AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 157/2010 OF CHIEF
                      JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM


PETITIONERS:ACCUSED NOS.7 AND 8

      1       M.KESAVA MENON,
              EDITOR, MATHRUBHUMI DAILY, KALOOR, KOCHI-17.

      2       V.BHASKARA MENON, B.A.B.L,
              PRINTER AND PUBLISHER,
              MATHRUBHUMI DAILY, KALOOR, KOCHI-17.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)
              SRI.R.ANIL
              SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR
              SRI.MANU TOM
              SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR
              SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.
              SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)
              SRI.M.VIVEK

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

      1       JOY JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR, HINDUSTAN POWER LIMITED,
              EDAYAR, MUPPATHADAM, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

      2       STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
              HIGH COURT OF KERALA.



              PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.SRI.M.R.DHANIL

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD          ON
13.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.MC.No.7205 OF 2014        2




                            ORDER

This Court in Leela Menon and Others v. State

of Kerala and Another (2020 KHC 834 : 2020 (6)

KHC SN 6:2020(2) KLD 818) laid down the

parameters and four contours in which the fourth

estate can legally involve, in the following lines:

"It is the solemn duty of the fourth estate to publish all news materials, especially having public importance and it is their further duty to comment on the news material with its pros and cons so as to enlighten the society to remain vigilant on the matters of public importance. It would squarely come under the first exception attached to Section 499 IPC, when it is done with bonafides for the public interest. The fourth estate being one of the rostrums to address and comment on each and every matters governing public interest/public importance in a democratic society, the news item published with necessary comments, though sometimes contemptuous, may not itself amount to a defamation as defined under Section 499 IPC, unless the same is lacking in good faith and not concerning with a matter of public interest or public good. The first proviso to Section 499 IPC has got a

wide canvass in a democratic system and right to purplish a news item with its necessary comments and views though sometimes contemptuous, cannot be defeated unless malafides writ large on its face and not concerning with a matter of public interest or public good. The contemptuous nature of news item if it is connected with imputation of truth which requires publication for the public good will not attract the offence."

2. The principle laid down in the abovesaid

case is squarely applicable in the instant case as

it is against accused No.7, the editor and accused

No.8, the printer and publisher of Mathrubhumi

daily based on a publication of a press conference

done by three persons, Aswathy, Mini Saji and

Nizimudeen, the victims of alleged malpractice done

by the defacto complainant in recruiting

professions under the guise of an offer to provide

permanent job. The disclosure is made by three

persons, who are the victims of the alleged

malpractice of the first respondent, defacto

complainant. Their disclosure hence requires

publication since it is concerning with a matter of

public interest. Hence no offence under Section

500 IPC, much less any offence against the

petitioners will stand attracted. In the matter of

a news item published, sometimes a complaint would

be an eye wash for evading liability from the

public notice. Hence the courts shall take

sufficient caution and care to satisfy itself

whether there is any sufficient reason to proceed

further with the complaint by taking cognizance and

whether it is intended to harass the accused person

without any valid reasons. In the matter of

defamation pertaining to a publication of a news

item, it must be satisfied that it is not at all an

eye wash intended to wriggle out of the liability

from the notice of the public, otherwise, it would

amount to acting as a tool or an instrument in the

hands of an unscrupulous litigant. There shall not

be any unnecessary interference with the privileges

and liberties enjoyed by the fourth estate.

3. It was brought to the notice of this Court

that the complainant after taking cognizance never

appeared before the Trial Court. Though notice was

issued by this Court in the instant case, nobody

appeared on behalf of the first respondent. For

securing ends of justice, the complaint and all

further proceedings in C.C.No.157/2010 of the Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam are hereby quashed

as against the petitioners, accused Nos.7 and 8.

Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

msp

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A : THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER

ANNEXURE A1 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

ANNEXURE B : THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT.14-12-2010 FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS.

ANNEXURE C: THE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P 6438/14 FILED BY THE COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS DTD.20-11-2014.

ANNEXURE D : THE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD.20-11-2014.

ANNEXURE E : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.3-3-2010 AND FILED ON 16-3-2010.

ANNEXURE F: THE TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT DT.8-

4-2010.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE