Ashokkumar Jain and Others v/s State of Maharashtra and Another (1986)

Ashokkumar Jain and Others v/s State of Maharashtra and Another

Author : Sreelakshmi M A

CITATION: 402/1986 Bombay high court

BENCH: B Deo

INTRODUCTION

In this case of Ashokkumar Jain and Others v/s State of Maharashtra and Another, the crime under section 500, 501 and 502 is said to have done by the applicants of this revision petition. Defamation is an intentional false communication that can be either written or spoken that harms a person’s reputation. It is both civil and criminal charge. In this case, the complaint was first lodged before the magistrate and guilt was proved. Then to quash that order, this revision petition was filed.

FACTS

A complaint was filed against the applicants of this case, alleging that a defamatory matter was written and published in the newspaper, which belongs to the applicant, by the complainant Mr. Jawaharlal who was the member of legislative council of the state. The applicant’s company owns chain of newspapers and magazines which had circulation all over India. The first applicant was the Chairman of the Board of Directors, who was having shares in the company. Applicant No. 2 was the General Manager of the said Company and the applicant No. 3 was the printer and publisher of the daily Navbharat Times published in Hindi language from Bombay, Delhi and Jaipur.

Defamatory matters were published in the said newspaper by the applicants against the complainant. It contained things like –

• Shri Darda used to pay Rs. 10,000/- p.m. to a woman who has relations with Shri R. K. Dhawan
• Shri Darda, spends Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- to keep contacts with Arun Nehru and Arun Singh
• In the eyes of Shri Darda, Rajiv Gandhi is a novice who is accustomed to take orders as a pilot, etc. And such other statements.

These statements were defamatory and hence complaint was lodged against applicants. The contention of the council appeared for the applicant was that merely because of the fact that the applicants had share in the said company and also the general manager of the company, they cannot be held liable for this act. They also contented that these three applicants had only limited knowledge of the editorial work of the said daily.

ISSUES AND FACTS OF LAW

• Whether the applicants had prior knowledge about the defamatory matter?
• Whether the decision of trial court needs to be quashed?

A test to check the knowledge of the accused applicants was needed to decide and hence situations in previous decisions regarding the knowledge of persons associated with printing, editing, publishing etc. were as referred. State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha was one such case referred where the Supreme Court had held that, when after application of mind on the basis of a petition of complaint made and the statement of the complainant recorded by the Magistrate, cognizance has been taken and such an order is sought to be quashed it would not be legal and reasonable for the High Court at this stage to launch a detailed and meticulous examination of the case on merits and to find out as to whether there is sufficient material to hold the accused persons guilty of the accusations leveled against them, as this is a matter which is to be decided at the trial and not at the stage of taking cognizance.

As per this, it is not legal for a high court to quash the order passed by a trial court after detailed analysis of an offence committed.

DECISION

The documents before the learned Magistrate disclose a prima facie case under Ss. 500, 501 and 502 against all the applicants for intentionally defaming the complainant with prior knowledge of defamatory imputations and publications. Therefore the court found no reason to exercise its revisional powers and hence it was dismissed.