http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1050 of 2006

PETITIONER: Ch. Ramoji Rao, Chairman Ramoji Group of Companies and Anr

RESPONDENT: State of Andhra Pradesh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/10/2006

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) NO. 3802 OF 2006)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Leave granted.

       Appellants call in question legality of the judgment  rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh  High Court dismissing the application filed by the appellants  in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,  1973 (in short ’Cr.P.C.’).  The prayer was to quash the  proceedings in CC No. 2/2006 on the file of the Metropolitan  Sessions Judge, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad.  The  State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Special Public  Prosecutor filed a complaint under Section 200 read with  Section 199 Cr.P.C. stating that with a common intention  intending to harm the reputation of the Government, of its  administration, of the Chief Minister, several minister and  several public servants made a telecast on E TV-2 channel  with commentary knowing fully that the same would harm  reputation of public functionaries. The voice over the  commentary was that of the appellant no.2.  Many expressions  and words used in  commentary are per se defamatory.  The  appellants filed a petition in terms of Section 482 Cr.P.C.  The  stand was that the complaint was nothing but gross abuse of  process of Court.  The respondent opposed the application  stating that on the facts alleged no interference in terms of  Section 482 Cr.P.C. was called for. With reference to Section  499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ’IPC’) the High  Court dismissed the application, holding that a prima facie  case existed and, therefore, no interference was called for.  

       Though many points were urged in support of the appeal,  leaned counsel for the appellants submitted that actually there  was no intention in any manner to harm reputation of the  Chief Minister, of the Ministers or the officials and, therefore,  continuance of the proceedings would not be in public  interest.   

       Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand  submitted that after showing the Chief Minister, ministers   and the public officials in poor light,  the appellants cannot  take the plea of innocence.   

       After hearing learned counsel at some length, we think

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

that public interest would be best served in directing  following  broadcast to be  made in the concerned TV channel by the  appellants  within a period of one week from today.   

       The telecast would be as follows:-

"A news telecast had been made by the  channels E TV-2 on 22.11.2005 covering the  visit of the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh  alongwith some of his ministers and officials to  Putta Parthi Sai Baba. The voice over  commentary for the said telecast was provided  by Smt. Kalyani.  It is clarified on behalf of  channel E TV-2 that the content of the voice  over commentary was not intended in any  manner to defame or harm the reputation of  the Chief Minister or his entourage of  ministers and officials.  If it has been  construed that way, it is clarified that same  was not the intent and purpose of the  broadcast."

       Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that to  show the bonafides  the appellants shall make the necessary  broadcast within the time indicated.   

       Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that all  proceedings relating to the broadcast shall be withdrawn and  shall not be pursued.            The appeal is accordingly disposed of.