Jacob Mathew v. Balaramapuram Surendran and State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR** **FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1942** **Crl.MC.No.1804 OF 2014** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 63/2011 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,NEYYATTINKARA** ## **PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:** **JACOB MATHEW, PRINTER AND PUBISHER, LALAYUALA MANORAMA PRESS, MALAYALA MANOARAMA, ARISTO JUNCTION, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:** **1 BALARAMAPURAM SURENDRAN, INCHAKKARA VEEDU, BALARAMAPAURAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA695 121, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.CHANDRA BABU** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **UDAYAKUMAR.K.B -P.P** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-062020, THE COURT ON 12-06-2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No.1804 OF 2014 2** ## **ORDER** The petitioner is the third accused in Annexure-A complaint in C.C.No.63 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate CourtIII, Neyyattinkara. He is the printer and publisher of the Malayala Manorama Daily. He seeks to quash the complaint filed by the first respondent, who is the member of the State Committee of JSS on the allegation that the petitioner and others published Annexure-B news item in Malayala Manorama Daily containing defamatory statement. The first accused is the President of District Committee of JSS, Thiruvananthapuram and second accused is the Secretary thereof. The other accused are editor, printer and publisher of the Kerala Kaumudhi Daily. 2. The contention of the first respondent in Annexure-A is that first and second accused made the defamatory news item to the effect that he was ## **Crl.MC.No.1804 OF 2014 3** removed from his party on the charges of anti party activities and financial irregularities. This news item was published on 25.3.2010 in Malayala Manorama Daily. According to him, the imputation made against him is utterly false and has no basis at all. It is stated that he has not committed any anti party activities nor been involved in any financial irregularities. It is contended that Annexure-B news item contains defamatory imputation and the petitioner published the same with the intention and knowledge that it would lower his reputation in the eyes of public. In short, his contention is that all the accused in furtherance of their common intention aimed at destroying his political image and prospect. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. The first respondent is not represented. 4. One of the contentions advanced by the ## **Crl.MC.No.1804 OF 2014 4** learned counsel for the petitioner is that the editor of Malayala Manorama Daily was not made a party and that by itself will render Annexure-A complaint unsustainable under law. I do not for a moment agree to this, since non prosecution of an editor along with printer and publisher as co- accused by itself, will not absolve the printer and publisher from criminal liability for commission of offence of the defamation, if their involvement is otherwise proved in the case. 5. The material contention advanced by the petitioner is that Annexure-A complaint amounts to abuse of the process of law and the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence without application of any judicial mind. It is also contended that if at all the allegations in the complaint are taken in its entirety also, they are incapable of constituting an offence of defamation u/s.500 of IPC. It was argued that since the **Crl.MC.No.1804 OF 2014 5** petitioner has not been shown to have had any personal ill-will or malice against the complainant, an accusation u/s. 500 of IPC cannot sustain under law at all. In this respect, three decisions of this Court in _**V.S.Achuthanandan v. Kamalamma reported in (2008 (3) KLT 346), Rekha and Others v. Vinodan T.S**_ and _**Another (2009 (3) KHC 477) and Jacob Mathew v. Manikantan (2012 (3) KLT 824)**_ were placed before me. 6. It is seen that Annexure-B news item was published on the basis of Annexure-C press release handed over by the first accused in the letter pad dated 24.3.2000 of District Committee of JSS, Thiruvananthapuram dated 23.4.2010. Annexure-C recites that the complainant was expelled from the party on account of his anti party activities and involvement in financial irregularities. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no allegation whatsoever in Annexure-A complaint to ## **Crl.MC.No.1804 OF 2014 6** the effect that he had any personal malice or illwill towards the complainant and in the absence of such allegation being made, the alleged defamatory statement contained in Annexure-B cannot be said to constitute an offence punishable u/s.500 of IPC. 7. Looking at the totality of the averments in complaint, I am also unable to find out any allegation to the effect that the petitioner was personally interested in making the alleged defamatory statement or that he was having any personal vendetta against the complainant. As per Section 499 of IPC, an imputation would tantamount to an offence of defamation only if the person making the statement or publication is shown to have done it with the intention that the imputation will harm the reputation of the person. What is therefore, relevant is the intention or the knowledge of the person publishing or making the news. Having gone through the materials on record, ## **Crl.MC.No.1804 OF 2014 7** I do not find that allegations made in Annexure-A complaint are sufficient to indicate that the petitioner had any intention or knowledge that the publication made would cause harm to the reputation of the complainant. The petitioner falls back upon the exception IX to Section 499 IPC and contends that Annexure-B news item does not contain any defamatory statement in as much as, the publication of the imputation as to the character of complainant was made in good faith for the public good. 8. The question therefore to be considered is whether the news item was published in good faith and in the interest of the public. By all means, Annexure-B is based on Annexure-C press release handed over by the first accused, who holds a responsible position in the party. When a person holding responsible position in the political party passes an information to the publisher that ## **Crl.MC.No.1804 OF 2014 8** one of the members of the party was removed for a particular reason, one fails to understand as to how the said information printed and published could amount to act done otherwise in good faith and constitute an offence of defamation. In the ordinary course, it should be assumed that the petitioner had reasonable ground to act upon the information passed to him since such information normally could only be the outcome of requisite inquiry at the disciplinary level of the political party. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner prima facie indicates that he acted in good faith in a desire to bring to light an information which he believed to be true having regard to the official position of the person who made the disclosure of the news in the press conference. 9. In short, the complainant has not been able to make out from the allegations in Annexure-A complaint that the alleged defamatory statement was ## **Crl.MC.No.1804 OF 2014 9** published by the petitioner with the intention of harming the reputation of the complainant. Therefore, the complaint, in my view, cannot survive to the extent it arraigns the petitioner as the offender. There is no point in allowing prosecution of the proceedings in C.C.No.63 of 2011 to continue, so far as the petitioner is concerned. The complaint, therefore, is only liable to be quashed to that extent. In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed qushing Annexure-A complaint in C.C.No.63 of 2011 to the extent it arraigned the petitioner as the accused. **==> picture [82 x 12] intentionally omitted <==** **T.V.ANILKUMAR JUDGE** pm **Crl.MC.No.1804 OF 2014 10** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE P1 ANNEXURE-A.PHOTOCOPY OF COMPLAINT IN CC 63/2011 ON THE FILES OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGUISTRATE COURT-III, NEYYATTINKARA.** **ANNEXURE P2 ANNEXURE-B.PHOTOCOPY OF NEWS INTEM APPEARED IN MALAYALAMANORAMA DAILY DATED 25/3/2010.** **ANNEXURE P3 ANNEXURE-C.PHOTOCOPY OF PRESS RELEASE DATED 24/3/2010 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT COMMITTEE OF POLITICAL PARTY.** RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL