The Allahabad High Court has recently in one of its judgement pronounced, quashed the summoning order passed against the editorial staff of a newspaper, in connection with a defamation case.

The High Court was upset with the release of the order and in strict words, it cautioned the Courts to be cautious and judicious in exercising the discretion and issuing process.

Single Judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh remarked,

"It is the prime duty of the press to expose the Government and its functionaries if they indulge in misgovernance or acts against the law and constitutional principles. If the press finds itself being cycled by the threat of prosecution, it cannot perform its duty, and it will have a chilling effect on the very right of free speech and freedom as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution,"

The case goes around when the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate summoned the Group Editor, Local Editor and Press Reporter (Applicants) of a Hindi News daily, 'Rashtriya Sahara', in a defamation case filed by erstwhile Minister of State Department of Energy (Respondent).

The Applicants were accused of publishing false news against the Respondent.

The news imputed respondent of demanding ₹10 lakh bribe from a Civil Engineer and transferring him on his failure to comply.

The Respondent in his submission had contended that the Applicants had colluded with each other, and published the aforesaid news item, with an intention to malign and denigrate not only his but the State's reputation as well in the eyes of the public in general.

COURT PROCEEDINGS 

The challenge before the Court was to decide the maintainability of the summoning order. In doing so, it assessed the case on two fronts.

FIRST:  It stated that "intention" was an important factor in the determination of the offence of defamation.

Defining the statement, it stated, 

"To constitute the offence of defamation under Section 499 IPC, there has to be imputation, and it must have been made in the manner with intention of causing harm or having reason to believe that this imputation will harm the reputation of a person…Mens rea is a condition 6 precedent to constitute the offence of defamation. The complaint must disclose that the accused had intended or accused had reasonable cause to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the complainant,"

The Court noted that the impugned news item was factually based on two letters and the Respondent hadn't tried to degenerate those letters.

It thus accordingly observed, 

"The news item was factually based on the two letters. If there is no imputation, it cannot be said that the offence of defamation has been committed by the accused. In the complaint, it has not been alleged that these two letters are forged. If these two letters are not denied, the news item cannot, in any manner, be said to be defamatory."

SECOND: When the Court analyzed the original defamation suit, especially in context to Section 199 of CrPC, it found that as per this provision, if a person defames a Minister in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions, a Court of Session may take cognizance of such offence, without the case being committed to it, upon a complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor.

The Court observed out that the above-mentioned requirement wasn't fulfilled by the Respondent in the present case.

Therefore, it held,

"the complaint was not maintainable before the Magistrate as there is a specific provision that the complaint should be filed through a Public Prosecutor in the Court of Session if Defamation is alleged in respect of the performance of the public duty by the person mentioned in Section 199(2) CrPC. In the present case, the news item was published with respect to his functioning as the Minister of Energy in State Government, the complaint could have been filed only through a Public Prosecutor, after taking sanction as prescribed."

The Court voiced its opinion on cautious and judicious exercise of the discretionary and issuing process. It cautioned Courts, 

"For the offence of criminal defamation, the burden is on the Magistrate to scrutinize the complaint on all aspects, and he is required to satisfy himself that the ingredients of Section 499 IPC are satisfied. The Magistrate must apply his judicial mind on the complaint, and facts of the case, before taking cognizance and issuing process, summoning the accused."

To stronghold its statement, the Court went cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 749, and said,

"It is well settled that the judicial process should not be an instrument of operation or needless harassment. The Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising the discretion and only after taking all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration should issue the process. The judicial process should not be an instrument in hands of the private complainant as vendetta to harass the person. The criminal law should not be set into motion as a matter of course..."

The judgement has been passed by Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh on 20-12-2019.

Read Judgement Here:

 

Picture Source :