Allowed

M.J.Vijayapadman v. K.R.Ajithkumar

Kerala HC1 Dec 2022Crl.MC/70/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash a private complaint regarding defamatory libel under Sections 499 and 500 IPC. The Court held that publishing asset declarations made by public officials for transparency served public good and lacked intent to harm reputation, especially as the newspaper also published the officials' explanations.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings pursuant to the private complaint and all further proceedings against the petitioner are quashed.

M.J.Vijayapadman Vs K.R.Ajithkumar — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 70 OF 2017

¶6

[AGAINST C.C.NO.81/2016 PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF THE

¶7

CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PATHANAMTHITTA]

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶9

M.J.VIJAYAPADMAN
PRINTER & PUBLISHER,MATHRUBHOOMI PRINTING & PUBLISHING
COMPANY LIMITED, SH MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 006.
BY ADV.P.VIJAYA BHANU SR.ADVOCATE
ADV.SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
ADV.C.JAYAKIRAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶11

1K.R.AJITHKUMAR
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. KUNJURAMAN,'ROHINI SADANAM', AZHOOR,PATHANAMTHITTA
VILLAGE,PATHANAMTHITTA P.O - 689 645.
2STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶12

R2 BY SHRI.SUDHEER GOPALAKRISHNAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R1 BY ADV SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.11.2022, THE COURT ON 01.12.2022 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

CRL.MC No.70 of 2017 2

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner is the 1staccused in

¶17

C.C.No.81/2016 on the file of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta. The aforesaid
Calendar Case was registered based on a private
complaint submitted by the 1st respondent herein
alleging offences punishable under Sections 499
and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶18

2.The facts which led to the filing of this
Crl.M.C. are as follows:

¶19

The petitioner/ 1st accused was the Printer and
Publisher of Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing
Company Limited, which is publishing Mathrubhumi
Daily. The 1st respondent/complainant was the
Municipal Councillor of Ward No.29 of
Pathanamthitta Municipality, and he was also the
former Vice-Chairman of the Municipal Council. The
complaint was submitted in respect of a news item

¶20

CRL.MC No.70 of 2017 3 published by the petitioner in the Mathrubhumi Daily on 01.05.2014 and the said publication is produced along with the Crl.M.C as Annexure-B. The aforesaid news item was published with a caption that there is increase of crores of rupees in the

¶21

assets of the Councillors of Pathanamthitta
Municipality. In the said news item, the details
of assets of the Councillors of the Municipality
were published based on their declaration made in
the year 2010 before the Returning Officer at the
time of election and also another declaration made
by them before the Lok Ayukta in the year 2013. A
comparative analysis is seen made in the aforesaid
news item. According to the 1st respondent/
complainant, the said news item was published in
such a manner that it created an impression among
the local people that the Councillors of the said
Municipality have amassed wealth by adopting
corruptive measures. Therefore, it is contended

¶22

CRL.MC No.70 of 2017 4

¶23

that the contents of the said news item are
defamatory, and the same was published by the
accused persons total of five in number, with the
intention to defame the Municipal Councillors.

¶24

3.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had

¶25

taken cognizance of the same and is now pending as

¶26

C.C.No.81/2014. This Crl.M.C. is filed by the
petitioner for quashing the said complaint, which
is produced as Annexure-A in the Crl.M.C. and all
further proceedings pursuant to the same.

¶27

4.Heard Sri. M. Ravikrishnan, the learned

¶28

counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Manu
Ramachandran, the learned counsel appearing for
the 1st respondent and Sri.Sudheer Gopalakrishan,
the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶29

5.One of the crucial contentions raised by
the petitioner is that, even if the contents of
Annexure-B are taken into consideration along with

¶30

CRL.MC No.70 of 2017 5

¶31

the averments made in the Annexure-A complaint, no

¶32

offence under Sections 499 and 500 would get
attracted. According to the learned counsel for
the petitioner, the said news item was only about
the declarations made by the Municipal Councillors
before the Returning Officer at the time of
election and also before the Lok Ayukta at a later
point of time. According to the learned counsel
for the petitioner, under no circumstances the
contents of the same can be treated as defamatory.

¶33

6.On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the 1st respondent would stoutly oppose the
aforesaid contentions, and he reiterates that the
said publication was made in such a way as to
create a wrong impression among the public about
the Municipal Councillors.

¶34

7.I have carefully gone through the contents
of Annexure-B and the specific averments made in

¶35

CRL.MC No.70 of 2017 6

¶36

Annexure-A complaint with respect to the
publication of Annexure-B. On going through
Annexure-B news item, it can be seen that the

¶37

contents of the same are basically the details of
the declarations made by the Municipal

¶38

Councillors, as rightly contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. Even though it is
stated in the heading of the news item that there
is an increase of crores of rupees in the assets
of the Municipal Councillors, specific details of
the declaration of assets made by each of the
Municipal Councillors are given in the new item.
The crucial aspect to be noticed in this regard is
that, apart from highlighting the increase in the
asset value of the Municipal Councillors,
absolutely no statements are seen made to
the effect that the said increase is on account

¶39

of any illegal acts or corrupt practices
committed/adopted by any of the Municipal

¶40

CRL.MC No.70 of 2017 7 Councillors. On the other hand, the said news item contains the details of the comparative analysis

¶41

of the declarations made by the Municipal

¶42

Councillors in the year, 2010 before the Returning

¶43

Officer at the time of election and in the

¶44

declaration made in the year, 2013 before the

¶45

Lok Ayukta. As far as the complainant is

¶46

concerned, the amount declared by him in the year,

¶47

2010 was shown as 12 lakhs, whereas in the

¶48

declaration made in the year, 2013, the same was
shown as 16 lakhs.

¶49

8.Annexure-D is the lawyer notice sent by

¶50

the 1st respondent/complainant to the petitioner

¶51

herein. In the said lawyer notice also, it is not

¶52

stated by the complainant that the details of the

¶53

asset value as published in Annexure-B news item

¶54

are false. Similarly, in Annexure-A complaint

¶55

submitted by the 1st respondent also, there are no

¶56

such averments. On the other hand, the averments

¶57

CRL.MC No.70 of 2017 8

¶58

in the complaint and the lawyer's notice are to
the effect that the publication of such details
are creating an impression among the public that
the Municipal Councillors have acquired wealth by
committing corrupt practices. However, I am of the
view that, when taking into account the contents
of Annexures A & B, no materials are there to
attract the offence under Sections 499 r/w.
Section 500 IPC. This is particularly because,
what is stated in the news item is the contents of
the declarations made by the respective
Councillors before the authorities concerned. The
declarations were made by them to make the general
public aware of the financial position of the
respective Municipal Councillors. In other words,
it was intended to ensure transparency and to make
the public aware of the financial position of
their representatives; hence, it is for the

¶59

purpose of the public good. Therefore, the

¶60

CRL.MC No.70 of 2017 9 publication of such details would not in any manner attract the offence under Section 499 of IPC. First of all, such publication cannot be treated as a statement which was intended to harm the reputation of the persons concerned. In the first exemption to Section 499 of IPC, it is stipulated that, it is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it is for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Therefore, in the light of the explanation, the imputation of truth concerning a person cannot be treated as a defamatory statement if the publication was for the public good. As mentioned above, the news item was related to the declarations made by the Municipal Councillors before the authorities referred to above and such declarations are part of the measures intended to make the system more transparent. Therefore publication of the details

¶61

CRL.MC No.70 of 2017 10

¶62

of such declarations would not attract any

¶63

culpability whatsoever, as the same can only be

¶64

treated as for public good, being a measure for
ensuring transparency in the matters relating to
the same.

¶65

9.The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶66

relies on the observations made by this Court in
Mammen Mathew v. Radhakrishnan [2007(4) KLT 833].
In the said decision, it was clearly observed
that, the mere publication of an imputation by
itself would not constitute the offence of

¶67

defamation unless such imputation has been made
with the intention, knowledge or belief that, such
imputation will harm the reputation of the person
concerned. However, as mentioned above, in this
case, what is published is the details of the
declarations made by the Municipal Councillors,
which were intended to be published and hence no
offence would be attracted in respect of the same.

¶68

CRL.MC No.70 of 2017 11

¶69

10. It is also the contention of the

¶70

petitioner that, there are no materials to

¶71

conclude that the publication was with an

¶72

intention to harm the reputation of the Municipal
Councillors or with the knowledge that by making
such publication, the reputation of Municipal
Councillors would be adversely affected. On
3.5.2014, the Mathrubhumi Daily published a news
item (Annexure G), in relation to the contents of
Annexure B, wherein the explanations offered by

¶73

the Municipal Councillors as to the contents of
Annexure B are published. On carefully going
through the contents of Annexure-G, it can be seen
that the details of the assets as revealed in

¶74

Annexure-B are not denied, and instead, the
respective Municipal Councillors were explaining
the reasons for such an increase in their asset

¶75

value. The contention of the learned counsel for

¶76

the petitioner in this regard is that the fact

¶77

CRL.MC No.70 of 2017 12 that the explanation on the part of the Municipal Councillors was published by the newspaper of which the petitioner is the Printer and Publisher would clearly indicate that he had no intention to

¶78

defame any of the persons concerned. For
substantiating this contention, the learned
counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision

¶79

in Mammen Mathew’s case (supra). In the said
decision, this Court, while taking the view that
the publication of imputation was without any
intention to harm the reputation of the
complainant, relied on a subsequent publication

¶80

made by the newspaper with regard to the
explanation of the complainant in respect of the
contents of the news item published earlier. After
appreciating the aforesaid aspects, it was held by
this Court in the said decision that in the light
of the publication of the explanation, no criminal
intention can be attributed against the accused

¶81

CRL.MC No.70 of 2017 13

¶82

for attracting the offence under Sections 499 and

¶83

500 of the Indian Penal Code. In this case, the

¶84

aforesaid principles are squarely applicable. As
mentioned above, immediately after the publication

¶85

of Annexure-B news item, Annexure-G news item

¶86

containing an explanation of the contents of

¶87

Annexure-BbyMunicipalCouncillorsof

¶88

Pathanamthitta Municipality has been published.

¶89

Therefore, for that reason also, it cannot be

¶90

concluded that the imputation contained in

¶91

Annexure-B was with an intention to cause harm to

¶92

the reputation of the persons concerned.

¶93

11.Another contention put forward by the

¶94

learned counsel for the petitioner is that, as per

¶95

Section 499(1)Cr.PC, no court shall take

¶96

cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter
XXI of IPC, which includes the offence under
Section 499, except upon a complaint made by some

¶97

persons aggrieved by the offence. It was contended

¶98

CRL.MC No.70 of 2017 14

¶99

by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in

¶100

Annexure-B, no individual reference of any
corruptive practices by the complainant has been
made therein. Therefore, he cannot be treated as a
person who is personally aggrieved so as to enable
him to submit a complaint as contemplated under
Section 199(1) of Cr.PC. From the averments in
Annexure-A complaint, it can be seen that the same
was not only filed because of the reason that, the
publication is harming the reputation of the
complainant as an individual, but the complaint
also refers to the loss of reputation of all the
Municipal Councillors. Therefore, the complaint
submitted by him was not only in his individual

¶101

capacity but also in his capacity as a Municipal
CouncillorofPathanamthittaMunicipality.
According to him, the imputation made in the
publication affects all the Municipal Councillors

¶102

as a class/category. Therefore, he, a member of

¶103

CRL.MC No.70 of 2017 15

¶104

that class of persons, is entitled to submit a

¶105

complaint alleging the commission of an offence
under Section 499 of IPC. This is mainly because,
when the publication specifically refers to
MunicipalCouncillorsofPathanamthitta

¶106

Municipality, it addresses a specific/definite
class of people, and hence all the members of such

¶107

class of people can be treated as persons
aggrieved by the same. Therefore, I do not find

¶108

any merit in the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner with regard to the
competence of the petitioner herein to submit this
complaint since the same was filed in his capacity
as one of the Municipal Councillors also.

¶109

12. Another contention of the learned counsel

¶110

for the petitioner is that he being a Printer and
Publisher of the Newspaper, in the absence of a
specific allegation indicating his role in
selection and publication of new item, cannot be

¶111

CRL.MC No.70 of 2017 16

¶112

implicated as an accused. However, I am not
inclined to accept the said contention. Section 5
of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1987,
contemplates that every Printer and Publisher
shall make a declaration with regard to certain
matters prescribed therein. Section 7 makes the
Printer and Publisher, along with the Editor of

¶113

the Newspaper, responsible for every portion of

¶114

every newspaper. Therefore, the aforesaid
provision contemplates a presumption against the
petitioner, who admittedly is a Printer and
Publisher of the newspaper. Thus, the question
relating to the role of the petitioner is
something which can be presumed, and unless such
presumption is rebutted, it cannot be concluded

¶115

that he is not responsible for the contents of the
publication made in the newspaper.

¶116

 13.As observed above, I have already found

¶117

that the contents of Annexure-B publication and

¶118

CRL.MC No.70 of 2017 17 the averments made in Annexure-A complaint do not

¶119

make out the necessary materials to attract the
offences alleged against the petitioner. Hence,
the entire proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A
against the petitioner are clear abuse of the
process of the court. For that reason, this is a
fit case in which the powers of this Court under
Section 482 Cr.PC can be invoked.

¶120

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed.

¶121

Annexure-A complaint in C.C.No.81/2016 on the file
of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Pathanamthitta and all further proceedings
pursuant to it, as against the petitioner herein,
are hereby quashed.

¶122

 Sd/-
pkk ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., JUDGE

¶123

CRL.MC No.70 of 2017 18

¶124

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES

¶125

ANNEXURE-A: TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
PATHANAMTHITTA

¶126

ANNEXURE-B: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE MATHRUBHOOMI
DAILY DATED 01.05.2014 CONTAINING THE NEWS ITEM WHICH IS ALLEGED
TO BE OBJECTIONABLE BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN HIS COMPLAINT

¶127

ANNEXURE-C: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE CONTAINING THE NEWS
ITEM PUBLISHED BY THE MANGALAM DAILY ON 01.05.2014

¶128

ANNEXURE-D: TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 07.05.2014 CAUSED
TO BE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER AND THE 5TH
ACCUSED IN THE CASE.

¶129

ANNEXURE-E: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE CAUSED TO BE ISSUED BY
THE PETITIONER TO ANNEXURE-D.

¶130

ANNEXURE-F: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD EVIDENCING
RECEIPT OF ANNEXURE-D.

¶131

ANNEXURE-G: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE MATHRUBHOOMI
DAILY DATED 03.05.2014 IN WHICH THE VERSION OF THE MUNICIPAL
COUNCILLORS IN THE MATTER IN ISSUE WAS REPORTED BY THE NEWSPAPER
WITH DUE PROMINENCE.

M.J.Vijayapadman v. K.R.Ajithkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.J.Vijayapadman v. K.R.Ajithkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rifath Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Kutty Vs State of Kerala

Kalarkode Venugopalan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Sathar.K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf Vs the State of Kerala