The Karnataka High Court has remanded the matter pertaining to defamation alleged against Times Now, India Today Group, India Today Editor-in-Chief Aroon Purie and news anchors Rajdeep Sardesai and Shiv Aroor back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration.
The single-judge bench of Justice V Shrishananda set aside the summons so issued while observing that cognizance was taken in a mechanical manner.
“The learned Magistrate has adopted a wrong procedure in allowing the advocate of the complainant to examine the complainant in chief when his sworn statement is recorded,” the court said.
A sting operation has been conducted when the complainant was having a discussion in Hotel Lalit Ashok at Bengaluru on 27.05.2016. Rajyasabha elections were being held at that juncture and there was a conversation with regard to the politicians leaving one political party and joining another party perhaps by luring them with money. The complainant spoke few sentences which are per se injurious to the good and sound political system and the guidelines prevailing in the political parties in the country and the same were aired in the electronic media and were published in the print media.
Feeling duped, the defacto complainant lodged complaint for offences punishable underSections 417, 420, 468, 153A 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 65 of Information Technology Act, 2000.
The Court took note of the fact that no efforts have been made by the defacto complainant to get the matter listed for final disposal and to have a logical end with regard to the said criminal case.
It is thus grievance of the respondent/complainant that by publication of the conversation which is part of the sting operation, his fame in his constituency has been reduced to such an extent that he has to lose the assembly election which was held in the year 2018.
Taking exception to the process followed by the Magistrate, the Court
stated that on receipt of the private complaint, the learned Magistrate
was required to follow the procedure as contemplated under Sections 200
and 202 of Cr.P.C., for taking the matter to the next level and in
pursuance thereof, the sworn statement of the complainant was sought to
be recorded.
"As could be seen from the material on record, instead of recording the sworn statement, the learned trial Magistrate has allowed examination-in-chief to be conducted by a Lawyer on behalf of the complainant. Based on such sworn statement (examination-in-chief) and also placing reliance on 09 documentary evidence which were also exhibited during the course of recording the sworn statement and marked as Exs.P1 to P9, the learned Trial Magistrate proceeded to issue summons," the Court said.
Noting that the respondent/complainant has raised several grounds to hold that the order issuing summons is bad in law, the court agreed with the same.
"Admittedly, the learned Magistrate has adopted a wrong procedure in allowing the advocate of the complainant to examine the complainant in chief when his sworn statement is recorded. Catena of judicial pronouncements of this Court has cautioned the District Judiciary that such a procedure is impermissible and it has to be discontinued. Despite such reported judicial pronouncements, the learned Magistrate has committed a grave error in allowing the examination-in-chief to be conducted while sworn statement of the complainant is recorded. Further, the same is made as a basis for assessing the prima facie case to summon the petitioners herein."
Stating that Section 200 of Cr.P.C., enjoins a mandatory duty on the Magistrate to examine the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, the Court remarked that mere examination of complainant alone would not be sufficient to take cognizance of the offences alleged in a given case and atleast one witness must support the cause of complainant.
"The sworn statement means a person must say that the allegations leveled in the complaint is true to his belief and information on oath. It should not be equated to the examination-in-chief. Law on the point and the procedure prescribed would also require that apart from the complainant, atleast one witness must be examined to assess the prima facie case against the accused for passing an order of issuance of summons," the Court added.
In the case on hand, admittedly except the complainant, no other person is examined, the Court concluded stressing that the learned Magistrate has thus totally erred in not following the appropriate procedure and taking cognizance of the alleged offences against the petitioners herein.
CASE TITLE: TIMES NOW BCCL vs SRI BHOJARAJ R. PATIL
CASE DETAILS: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200023/2023
CORAM: Justice V Shrishananda
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments