constitutional freedom of speech and expression is subjected to
reasonable restraints but it cannot be suppressed on the ground
of convenience. Any attempt to destroy the fourth pillar of Indian
democracy by any atheistic demon Hiranyakashipu and to control
the fair and honest media reporting for ulterior motive can have
a devastating effect and would give rise to Lord Narasimha
Avatar. Therefore, practice of tolerance is a welcome sign in
constitutional scheme.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Criminal Revision No. 391 of 2001
Tathagata Satpathy V Santilata Choudhury
P R E S E N T:
MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
Date of Judgment: 19.06.2017
S. K. Sahoo, J. The petitioners Tathagata Satapathy and Dandapani
Misra in Criminal Revision No.391 of 2001 have challenged the
impugned order dated 02.07.2001 passed by the learned
J.M.F.C., Cuttack in I.C.C. Case No.52 of 1995 in rejecting their
application for recalling the order dated 29.04.1995 passed by
the learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack in taking cognizance of
offences under sections 500, 501 read with section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and issuance of process against them.
The petitioners Sitakanta Mohapatra and Niranjan
Sahoo in Criminal Revision No.375 of 1998 have challenged the
impugned order dated 29.07.1998 passed by the learned
S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack in I.C.C. Case No.52 of 1995 in
rejecting their application for recalling the very same order dated
29.04.1995 passed by the learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack.
Since both the revision petitions arise out of the
same case in which the applications filed by the respective
petitioners to recall the very same order of taking cognizance
and issuance of process have been rejected, with the consent of
the parties, those were heard analogously and are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The opposite party Santilata Choudhury (hereafter
‘the complainant’) filed the complaint petition in the Court of
learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack on 06.04.1995 stating therein
that she was an active social worker and a member of National
Congress and was the Vice President of the Cuttack District
Congress (I) Seva Dal and she was also the Secretary of Mahila
Congress. It is further stated in the complaint petition that the
petitioner no.1 Sitakanta Mohapatra (Criminal Revision No.375
1998) was defeated in the last assembly election and the
petitioner no.2 Niranjan Sahoo (Criminal Revision No.375 of
1998) was a henchman of petitioner no.1 and was the President
of Barchana Block Congress and both the petitioners were
envious and zealous against the complainant as she was
inducted in the Congress Seva Dal. Both the petitioners with
their supporters called a meeting and published defamatory
news items in the newspapers i.e. ‘Dharitri’, ‘Pragativadi’ and
‘Matrubhasa’ without any basis to cause harm to the reputation 4
of the complainant with malafide intention. It is stated that the
printer and publisher of the newspapers have not published the
news items in good faith and by such publication, the
complainant who had a social standing, reputation and respect
was defamed and the general public formed a bad impression on
the complainant after reading such items. It is further stated that
the witnesses named in the complaint petition handed over the
newspapers to the complainant and after going through the news
items, the complainant sent pleader notices to accused nos.1
and 2 (petitioners in Criminal Revision No.375 1998) who did not
reply to the notices and since the complainant was mentally
upset, she thought it proper to take shelter in the Court of law.
The complainant filed the news items published in ‘Dharitri’,
‘Pragativadi’, ‘Matrubhasa’ as well as the pleader notices to
accused nos. 1 and 2 along with the complaint petition.
3. The learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack recorded the
initial statement of the complainant and on being prima facie
satisfied, took cognizance of the offences under sections 500,
501 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide order
dated 29.04.1995 and issued process against all the six accused
persons named in the complaint petition including the petitioners
in both the revision petitions. 5
4. On perusal of the lower Court records which was
called for by this Court, it is found that after cognizance of
offences was taken by the learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack, on
17.12.1997 the accused no.1 and 2 (petitioners in Criminal
Revision No.375 1998) filed a petition to recall the order of
taking cognizance which was rejected vide order dated
29.07.1998 which is impugned in Criminal Revision No.375 of
1998.
The order of taking cognizance and issuance of
process against accused no.6 Pravakar Mishra who is stated to
be the editor and publisher of ‘Matrubhasa’ was recalled by the
learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack vide order dated 29.07.1998
considering his petition for recall dated 13.01.1998.
5. The trial of the complaint case started and the
complainant Santilata Choudhury was examined on 01.03.1999
as P.W.1 and she supported her case and she was also crossexamined
by the learned defence counsel for accused nos. 4 and
5 (petitioners in Criminal Revision No.391 of 2001). The three
news items published in Dharitri, Pragativadi and Matrubhasa
were also marked as exhibits.
The order sheet dated 18.03.1999 indicates that a
petition was filed by accused no.1 Sitakanta Mohapatra
(petitioner in Criminal Revision No.375 1998) to recall the 6
complainant (P.W.1) for cross-examination which was allowed on
22.04.1999. On 21.06.1999 accused nos. 4 and 5 (petitioners in
Criminal Revision No.391 of 2001) filed a petition to decide on
the point of jurisdiction. On 17.08.1999 another petition was
filed by accused no.3 Priyaranjan Das to decide on the point of
jurisdiction. On 03.01.2000 both the petitions filed by accused
nos. 3, 4 and 5 to decide the point of jurisdiction were rejected
by the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack. On 28.02.2001 separate
petitions were filed by accused nos. 3, 4 and 5 to recall of the
order of cognizance. Considering such petitions filed by the
accused nos. 3, 4 and 5, the order dated 02.07.2001 was passed
by the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack which is impugned in Criminal
Revision No.391 of 2001.
6. In Criminal Revision No.375 of 1998 which was filed
on 28.08.1998, notice was issued to the complainant on
20.10.1998 and though Misc. Case No.287 of 1999 was filed on
27.04.1999 for stay of further proceeding of the complaint
petition but no stay order was passed.
In Criminal Revision No.391 of 2001, notice was
issued on 03.08.2001 and further proceeding of the complaint
case proceeding was stayed.
7. Mr. Kalayan Patnaik, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the petitioners in Criminal Revision No.391 of 2001 7
contended that the alleged defamatory news items were
published in different newspapers on different dates and those
were not one and same but their contents were also different
and therefore, one complaint petition against all the three
newspapers for different publications is not maintainable. It is
further contended that the news item published in ‘Dharitri’ does
not constitute an offence of defamation and the learned S.D.J.M.
(Sadar), Cuttack had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint petition as the complainant belongs to village Khaira
under Barachana police station in the district of Jajpur and the
witnesses who stated to have handed over the newspapers to
the complainant are also of either Jajpur or Kendrapara district
and therefore, since no cause of action arose within the
territorial jurisdiction of the S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack, complaint
petition should not have been entertained at Cuttack. The
learned counsel further contended that there is no pleading in
the complaint petition regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the
concerned Court. Learned counsel relied upon the decisions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Abhay Lalan -Vrs.-
Yogendra Madhavalal reported 1998 Criminal Law Journal
1667, Navinchandra N. Majithia -Vrs.- State of
Maharashtra reported in A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2966 and Oil 8
Natural Gas Commission -Vrs.- Utpal Kumar Basu reported
in 1994 (3) SCALE 22.
Mr. Karunakar Jena, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners in Criminal Revision No.375 of 1998 contended
that the petitioners are neither publishers nor editors of any of
the newspapers i.e. ‘Dharitri’, ‘Pragativadi’ and ‘Matrubhasa’ and
the contents of the alleged defamatory news items, if taken on
its face value do not constitute the ingredients of the offences
under which cognizance was taken and therefore, the issuance of
process against the petitioners is illegal. It is further stated that
such a complaint petition was filed with oblique motive due to
political dispute and the judicial process should not be used as
an instrument of oppression. It is contended that the chances of
ultimate conviction of the petitioners for the alleged offences is
bleak and therefore, no useful purpose would be served in
allowing the prosecution to continue. The learned counsel relied
upon the decisions rendered in the cases of State of Haryana
-Vrs.- Ch. Bhajanlal reported in AIR 1992 SC 604,
Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia -Vrs.- Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre reported in AIR 1988 SC 709, Biraja
Panda -Vrs.- State of Orissa reported in Vol.81 (1996)
Cuttack Law Times 417, Ramesh Chandra Das -Vrs.-
Premalata Patra reported in (1988) 1 Orissa Criminal 9
Reports 577, Manda Marandi -Vrs.- State of Orissa
reported in (2008) 39 Orissa Criminal Reports 359,
M/s. Zandu Pharmaceutical –Vrs.- Md. Sharaful Haque
reported in 2005 (Vol.I) Orissa Law Review (SC) 51.
8. The ratio of the decisions relied upon by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners in Criminal Revision No.375
of 1998 would indicate that where accepting the case of the
complainant in its entirety, the prima facie ingredients of the
offences are not attracted or the chances of ultimate conviction
is bleak and continuance of the criminal proceeding would
amount to abuse of process of the Court, the High Court can
exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to
quash the proceeding otherwise it would be miscarriage of
justice. The Court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose.
Where no prima facie case is available in support of the
complaint case and the complainant is not coming to the Court
with clean hand, the High Court can exercise its inherent power
and quash the order of taking cognizance.
So far as the ratio of the decisions relied upon by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Criminal Revision
No.391 of 2001 are concerned, in the case of Abhaya Lalan -
Vrs.- Yogendra Madhablal reported 1998 Criminal Law
Journal 1667, it was held as follows:10
“5.……The question involved is one of
jurisdiction. If, as a matter of fact, the learned
Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the
complaint and if the Magistrate proceeds with
the complaint, it will be an abuse of the process
of the Court and for the purpose of securing the
ends of justice, interference can be made by the
High Court in exercise of its inherent powers
under section 482 of the Code.”
In the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia -Vrs.-
State of Maharashtra reported in A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2966, it
is held that so far as the question of territorial jurisdiction with
reference to a criminal offence is concerned, the main factor to
be considered is the place where the alleged offence was
committed.
In the case of Oil Natural Gas Commission -Vrs.-
Utkal Kumar Basu reported in 1994 (3) SCALE 22, it is held
that in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction,
the Court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause
of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon and
inquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts and
the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the
facts pleaded in the petition.11
9. In the case of Subramanian Swamy -Vrs.- Union
of India reported in (2016) 64 Orissa Criminal Reports
(SC) 561 where the constitutional validity of sections 499 and
500 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 199(1) to 199(4) of
Cr.P.C. was challenged, it was held that Cr.P.C. governs the
territorial jurisdiction and needless to say, if there is abuse of the
said jurisdiction, the person grieved by the issue of summons
can take appropriate steps in accordance with law. In matters of
criminal defamation, the heavy burden is on the Magistracy to
scrutinize the complaint from all aspects. He must be satisfied
that ingredients of section 499 of I.P.C. are satisfied. Application
of mind in the case of complaint is imperative.
Law is well settled that where a newspaper
containing a defamatory article is printed and published at one
place and is circulated or sold at other places by or on behalf of
the accused responsible for the printing and publishing the
newspaper, then there would be publication of the defamatory
article in all such other places and the jurisdictional Magistrate
can entertain the complaint for defamation. (Ref:- 1994
Criminal Law Journal 3510, P.Lankesh -Vrs.- H. Shivappa).
In the case of Martin Lottery Agencies -Vrs.- S.
Maniraman reported in 2005 Criminal Law Journal 3146, it
is held that crimes are local and justifiable only by the local 12
Courts within whose jurisdiction those crimes are committed and
only when a criminal offence commenced within the jurisdiction
of one Court and completed within the jurisdiction of another
Court, it may be tried by either of the Courts but, it is to be seen
by the Court that the area within which offence is committed as
the same is relevant for deciding the place of trial and if the
offence is committed wholly outside the jurisdiction, a Magistrate
cannot try the case. Considering the facts of that case, it was
further held that there is no material on record to show that the
newspaper "Athirshtam" was circulated and sold at Gangtok,
Sikkim and as such the Trial Court had rightly held that it has no
territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the case. Even
assuming the offence was committed at Madurai, Tamil Nadu,
the parties being the residents of Tamil Nadu, Madurai is the
right place of trial and mere statement of a witness that he
heard rumors about the publication of the defamatory
articles/items in the newspaper "Athirshtam" in Tamil language
and some of their friends had brought those newspapers and
made the witness understand in Nepali language and, knowledge
of such rumors at Gangtok will not constitute the requirements
of publications or circulation or selling of those newspapers at
Gangtok within the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court. 13
In the case of S. Bangarappa -Vrs.- Ganesh
Narayan Hegde reported in 1984 Criminal Law Journal
1618, where the alleged defamatory statement made by the
accused in the press conference at ‘B’ was published in the
evening newspaper 'Sanje Vani' on the same day at ‘B’ and in
the daily newspaper 'Samyukta Karnataka' in the early hours of
the very next day at ‘H’, it was held that the Court at ‘H’ had
jurisdiction to try the offence of defamation. Section 179 Cr.P.C.
applies to those offences which, by their very definition, consist
of an act and its consequence. In short, the act and its
consequence must together constitute an offence. The offence of
defamation consists not only of the statement said to have been
made but also its publication. The publication is a consequence
of the alleged statement said to be made by the accused.
Therefore, the Court that would have jurisdiction must be the
Court where the act has been done or where the consequence
has ensued. The consequence contemplated by Section 179 is
not a remote consequence of the act done. 'Consequence' is
confined to that which is an ingredient of the offence for which
the accused person is being tried. It was not the case of accused
that 'Samyukta Karnataka' made a reference to the publication
of the news item in 'Sanje Vani' and made it a sure for
publication in its paper. The publication of the statement in 14
'Samyukta Karnataka' had nothing to do with the publication
made by 'Sanje Vani'. Looking to the close Proximity of time and
the place, unity of purpose or design in publishing the same, one
can very well make out that the publication of the alleged
statement 'Samyukta Karnataka' was a consequence of the
statement made in the press conference. Therefore, it cannot be
said that the publication of the statement in 'Sanje Vani'
completed the alleged offence of defamation in ‘B’ itself. It may
be that the Court at ‘B’ also might have had jurisdiction but the
fact remains that an independent paper like 'Samyukta
Karnataka' independent of the publication in 'Sanje Vani',
published that statement in ‘H’. Therefore, the publication of the
alleged statement in 'Samyukta Karnataka' will be a
consequence within the meaning of Section 179 Cr.P.C. Once the
consequence of publication has taken place at ‘H’, it cannot be
said that Court at ‘H’ has no jurisdiction to try the present
offence.
In the case of Dr. Subramaniam Swamy -Vrs.-
P.S. Pai reported in 1984 Criminal Law Journal 1329, the
Bombay High Court was dealing with a case of alleged
defamatory statement made by the accused in press conference
at Chandigarh but the statement in the newspaper was circulated 15
and read in Bombay. On the question of jurisdiction, the Bombay
High Court held that the particular newspaper in which the
impugned news item is published is circulated and read in the
city of Bombay where the complainant resides. The Court took
the view that the consequence of the statement made at
Chandigarh has been completed at Bombay by circulation of the
said newspapers, and, therefore, the offence of defamation is
complete in the city of Bombay. As per Section 179 of the Code,
both the Courts at Chandigarh and at Bombay will have
jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under Section 500 of the
Indian Penal Code.
In the case of M.P. Narayana Pillai -Vrs.- M.P.
Chacko reported in 1986 Criminal Law Journal 2002,
where in the matter relating to defamatory proceedings out of
the news item published and the cognizance taken by the Court
was challenged, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala held as
follows:-
“7. One of the contentions of the petitioners is
that the Magistrate acted illegally in taking
cognizance of the offence when he had no
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
That contention does not appear to be correct. It
is true that the Kalakaumudi Weekly is printed
and published from Trivandrum but in order to 16
maintain a prosecution for defamation in a
particular Court, there need only be publication
of the libel within the jurisdiction of the Court
where the complaint is filed. Jurisdiction has to
be decided on the basis of the allegations in the
complaint for the purpose of a proceeding under
Section 499. The very allegation of the 1st
Respondent in the complaint is that it was
published at Vaikom also and it was from there
that he got and read a copy of it. Being a weekly
publication intended to be read by people, it is
enough for the complainant to show that the
publication was delivered within the limits of the
territorial jurisdiction of the Court in order to
invest that Court with jurisdiction. It need not be
shown that the defamatory matter was seen or
read by any particular person within the
jurisdiction of that Court. Since the weekly is
being printed and published for the purpose of
reading by the people when it is shown that it
was published it could be presumed that it was
read.”
In the case of K.M. Mathew -Vrs.- State of Kerala
reported in (1992) 5 Orissa Criminal Reports 66, in a case
of defamation, the Magistrate held that the complaint in so far as
it relates to the Chief Editor could not be proceeded with. The
Kerala High Court reversed the order of the Magistrate. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held as follows:-17
“In the instant case there is no averment against
the Chief Editor except the motive attributed to
him. Even the motive alleged is general and
vague. The complainant seems to rely upon the
presumption under Section 7 of the Press and
Registration of Books Act, 1867 ('the Act'). But
Section 7 of the Act has no applicability for a
person who is simply named as 'Chief Editor'.
The presumption under Section 7 is only against
the person whose name is printed as 'editor' as
required under Section 5(1). There is a
mandatory (though rebuttable) presumption that
the person whose name is printed as 'Editor' is
the editor of every portion of that issue of the
newspaper of which a copy is produced.
Section 1(1) of the Act defines 'Editor' to mean
'the person who controls the selection of the
matter that is published in a newspaper'.
Section 7 raises the presumption in respect of a
person who is named as the editor and printed
as such on every copy of the newspaper. The Act
does not recognise any other legal entity for
raising the presumption. Even if the name of the
Chief Editor is printed in the newspaper, there is
no presumption against him under Section 7 of
the Act. (See State of Maharashtra -Vrs.- Dr.
R.B.Chowdhary and Ors. 1968 Criminal
Law Journal 95 ; D.P.Mishra -Vrs.- Kamal
Narain Sharma and Ors., (1971) 3 SCR 257;
Narasingh Charan Mohanty -Vrs.- Surendra 18
Mohanty, (1974) 2 SCR 39 and Haji
C.H.Mohammad Koya -Vrs.- T.K.S.M.A.
Muthukoya, (1979) 1 SCR 664.)
It is important to state that for a Magistrate
to take cognizance of the offence as against the
Chief Editor, there must be positive averments
in the complaint of knowledge of the
objectionable character of the matter. The
complaint in the instant case does not contain
any such allegation. In the absence of such
allegation, the Magistrate was justified in
directing that the complaint so far as it relates to
the Chief Editor could not be proceeded with. To
ask the Chief Editor to undergo the trial of the
case merely on the ground of the issue of
process would be oppressive. No person should
be tried without a prima facie case. The view
taken by the High Court is untenable. The
appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the
High Court is set aside.”
In the case of Jawaharlal Darda v. Manoharrao
Ganpatrao Kapsikar reported in (1998) 4 Supreme Court
Cases 112, a news item was published on 04.02.84, the
complaint in that behalf was filed by the complainant on
02.02.87 and the news item merely disclosed what happened
during the debate which took place in the Assembly on 13.12.83.
It stated that when a question regarding misappropriation of 19
Government funds meant for Majalgaon and Jaikwadi was put to
the Minister concerned, he had replied that a preliminary enquiry
was made by the Government and it disclosed that some
misappropriation had taken place. When questioned further
about the names of persons involved, he had stated the names
of five persons, including that of the complainant. The said
proceedings came to be published by the accused in its Daily on
04.02.84. As because the name of the complainant was
mentioned as one of the persons involved and likely to be
suspected, he filed a complaint before the learned C.J.M. alleging
that as a result of publications of the said report, he had been
defamed. It is quite apparent that what the accused had
published in its newspaper was an accurate and true report of
the proceedings of the Assembly. Involvement of the respondent
was disclosed by the preliminary enquiry made by the
Government. If the accused bona fide believing the version of
the Minister to be true published the report in good faith, it
cannot be said that they intended to harm the reputation of the
complainant. It was a report in respect of public conduct of
public servants who were entrusted with public funds intended to
be used for public good. It was further held that the facts and
circumstances of the case disclose that the news items were 20
published for public good, in holding not liable for criminal
defamation.
10. The relevant news item which was published in the
Odia daily ‘Dharitri’ dated 08.12.1994 under the caption
“Criminals are encouraged to join Congress” indicates that more
than hundred Congress leaders from thirty nine Grama
Panchayats of Barchana and Dharmasala Block of Jajpur District
came to PCC Office at Bhubaneswar and presented a
memorandum addressing to the President indicating therein by
way of protest not to accept Pramod Choudhury and Santilata
Choudhury (complainant) in the Congress Party as they are
inter-provincial smugglers.
According to the complainant, this part of the news
item published in Odia daily ‘Dharitri’ is defamatory. The
newspaper ‘Dharitri’ in its last page indicates that it was printed
and published by Sri Dandapani Misra (petitioner in Criminal
Revision No.391 of 2001) on behalf of Samajbadi Society at
Navajat Printers, B-15, Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar and
edited by Tathagata Satpathy (petitioner in Criminal Revision
No.391 of 2001). It is further mentioned, inter alia, that the
newspaper has an office at Cuttack in Pithapur and the phone
number of the office has been given.21
On perusal of the complaint petition, it is clear that
nowhere it is mentioned as to where the complainant came to
know about the news item though it is mentioned therein that
the witnesses handed over the newspapers to the complainant
and the complainant on going through these newspapers gave
pleader notice to the accused. The pleader notice dated
11.12.1994 which is available on record also does not indicate as
to where the complainant came to know about the news item.
There is no dispute that the complainant has given her address
at village-Khaira, P.S.-Barchana, District-Jajpur and the
witnesses cited in the complaint petition are either of DistrictJajpur
or Kendrapara. There is no averment that the defamatory
matter was seen or read by any particular person within the
jurisdiction of the Court of learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack.
However, since there is an office of the newspaper ‘Dharitri’ at
Cuttack in Pithapur as mentioned in the back of the newspaper,
the complainant has prima facie established that the publication
was delivered within the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the
Court of learned S.D.J.M.(Sadar), Cuttack in order to invest that
Court with jurisdiction.
On careful analysis of the news item published in
‘Dharitri’, there is nothing against the two petitioners Sitakanta
Mohapatra and Niranjan Sahoo in Criminal Revision No.375 of
1998. The news item reflects the summary of the contents of
memorandum presented by the Congress leaders of thirty nine
Grama Panchayats at PCC Office, Bhubaneswar addressed to the
President. It is quite apparent that what the petitioners in
Criminal Revision No.391 of 2001 had published in the
newspaper ‘Dharitri’ was the summary of the contents of
memorandum and it is not their individual opinion. It seems that
the report was published in the news paper ‘Dharitri’ in good
faith without any intention to harm the reputation of the
complainant.
Similarly, in the news item published in ‘Pragativadi’
dated 07.12.1994 under the caption ‘Charles Sobhraj of Orissa in
Congress Party’, though similar news item regarding
presentation of memorandum against the complainant to the
PCC President has been mentioned along with the summary of
the memorandum but there is nothing against the two
petitioners Sitakanta Mohapatra and Niranjan Sahoo in Criminal
Revision No.375 of 1998.
In the news items published either in Odia daily
‘Dharitri’ or in ‘Pragativadi’, there are no materials that such
publications were at the instance of the petitioners Sitakanta
Mohapatra and Niranjan Sahoo in Criminal Revision No.375 of
1998. Even the names of these two petitioners do not find place
in the news items. Though in the news item published in
‘Matrubhasa’, some statements of petitioners Sitakanta
Mohapatra and Niranjan Sahoo have been published but since
the order taking cognizance against accused no.6 Pravakar
Mishra who is stated to be the editor and publisher of
‘Matrubhasa’ was recalled vide order dated 29.07.1998, such
news item cannot be utilized against petitioners Sitakanta
Mohapatra and Niranjan Sahoo.
11. In view of the above analysis, though the power of
this Court to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the
subordinate Courts must be exercised sparingly and with
circumspection but when on the available materials on record,
the ingredients of offences under sections 500, 501 read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted against any
of the petitioners in the two criminal revision petitions i.e.
Criminal Revision No.391 of 2001 and Criminal Revision No.375
of 1998 and chances of ultimate conviction of any of the
petitioners is bleak and continuance of the criminal proceeding
would amount to abuse of process of the Court, in the fitness of
things and in exercise of my inherent jurisdiction under section 24
482 of Cr.P.C., in order to prevent miscarriage of justice, I am
inclined to accept the prayer made by the petitioners and quash
the criminal proceedings against them in I.C.C. Case No.52 of
1995 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack.
Before parting, I would humbly say that the
constitutional freedom of speech and expression is subjected to
reasonable restraints but it cannot be suppressed on the ground
of convenience. Any attempt to destroy the fourth pillar of Indian
democracy by any atheistic demon Hiranyakashipu and to control
the fair and honest media reporting for ulterior motive can have
a devastating effect and would give rise to Lord Narasimha
Avatar. Therefore, practice of tolerance is a welcome sign in
constitutional scheme.
Accordingly, Criminal Revision No.391 of 2001 and
Criminal Revision No.375 of 1998 are allowed.
…………………………
S.K. Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 19th June, 2017/Sukanta
No comments:
Post a Comment