9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Defamation complaint against a newspaper publisher for publishing defamatory imputations against a hospital, challenge to the trial court's discharge order based on lack of locus standi of the complainant, interpretation of Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and determination of locus standi of the complainant in a defamation case involving a company.
Defamation Complaint: The complainant, the Director of a hospital, filed a defamation complaint against a newspaper publisher for publishing defamatory imputations against the hospital. The High Court directed the trial to proceed after the trial magistrate discharged the accused based on contentions regarding defamation and locus standi of the complainant. Trial Court Discharge: The trial magistrate discharged the accused based on the contention that the complainant, as the Director of the hospital, did not have the locus standi to file the complaint as the hospital was a private limited company. The magistrate held that the complainant failed to prove his status as the Director of the hospital, thus lacking the standing to file the complaint. Interpretation of Section 258: The accused challenged the High Court's decision based on Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows for stopping proceedings in certain cases. However, the court clarified that Section 258 applies only to summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaints, and since the present case was instituted upon a complaint, Section 258 did not apply. Locus Standi in Defamation Case: The court discussed the complainant's locus standi in a defamation case involving a company. It was noted that under Section 199 of the Code, the complainant need not necessarily be the defamed person himself, and any person aggrieved by the publication can file a complaint. In this case, as the Director of the hospital, the complainant fell within the purview of "some person aggrieved" as per the law. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to proceed with the trial. The court emphasized that the imputations were prima facie libellous, and the complainant, as the Director of the hospital, had the locus standi to file the defamation complaint. The court also clarified the application of Section 258 of the Code in summons cases instituted upon complaints.
|
