9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 1291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot feel aggrieved. The accused/publisher, who raised the objection before the trial court, on being summoned by the court to appear before it, succeeded in stalling the progress of the trial by clinging to the said contention which the trial magistrate has upheld. But the High Court of Madras disapproved the action of the magistrate and directed the trial to proceed. Hence the accused has come up to this Court by filing the special leave petition. But after hearing the learned senior counsel, who argued for the appellant, we did not find the necessity to wait for the respondent - complainant to reply to those arguments as the appeal is only liable to be dismissed in limine. The complainant (respondent in this) stated that he is running a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quashing the complaint on the ground that the magistrate ought to have examined all the witnesses for the complainant before issuing the process to the accused. The High Court dismissed his petition and repelled his contention on that score as per an order passed in Crl.O.P. No.2189/93. Thereafter the appellant moved the trial court for discharging him from the proceedings for which he raised two other contentions. The first among them is that the publication did not amount to defamation, second among them is that K.J. Hospital is a private limited company whereas the complainant is a private individual who had no locus standi to file the complaint. On the first contention, the trial magistrate found that the imputations are derogator ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter passing over to the stage of evidence. According to the learned single Judge, the accused should have filed the application for discharge immediately after he entered appearance and if he has not done so he could not do it after the court has moved to the stage of evidence taking. What the learned single Judge has stated on that aspect reads as follows: If such an application is filed before the court immediately after entering appearance before commencement of the trial as envisaged in Chapter XX Cr.P.C. the petition is maintainable. But now, the stage has passed and the evidence of two witnesses on the side of prosecution was recorded and at this stage in the absence of any provision for discharge of the accused the magistrate oug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Summons cases are generally of two categories. Those instituted upon complaints and those instituted otherwise than upon complaints. The latter category would include cases based on police reports. Section 258 of the Code is intended to cover those cases belonging to one category alone i.e. summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaints . The segment separated at the last part of the section by the words and in any other case is only a sub- category or division consisting of summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaints . That sub- category is not intended to cover all summons cases other than those instituted on police report. In fact, Section 258 vivisects only summons cases instituted otherwise than on comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the apparent deficiency. So the appellant cannot contend, at this stage, that he is entitled to discharge on the ground that the imputations in the extracted publication were not per se defamatory. The contention focussed by the learned senior counsel is that the respondent, who filed the complaint, has no locus standi to complain because he is only a Director of K.J. Hospital about which the publication was made and that the publication did not contain any libel against the complainant personally. It is not disputed that the complainant is the Director of K.J. Hospital. Explanation 2 in Section 499 of the IPC reads thus: Explanation 2.- It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or colle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oratives hurled at the company. Hence the appellant cannot justifiably contend that the Director of the K.J. Hospital would not fall within the wide purview of some person aggrieved as envisaged in Section 199(1) of the Code. The learned senior counsel made a last attempt to save the appellant from prosecution on the strength of the decision of this Court in K.M. Mathew vs. State of Kerala {1992 (1) SCC 217}. In that case prosecution against Chief Editor was quashed for want of necessary averments in the complaint regarding his role in the publication. That part of the decision rests entirely on the facts of that case and it cannot be imported to this case. It is pertinent to point out, in this context, that the appellant did not have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
