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

PETITIONER: JAWAHARLAL DARDA AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MANOHARRAO GANPATRAO KAPSIKAR AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       26/03/1998

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, V.N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T NANAVATI. J.      Respondent No.  1 - Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar filed a complaint  in the  court of  CJM, Nanded, alleging that by publishing a  news item in its newspaper "Daily Lokmath", on 4.2.84, Mr. J.L.Darda, who was then the Chief Editor of that Daily, Mr.  Rajinder Darda, who was the Editor of the Daily, Mr. Madhukar, who was the Executive Editor of the Daily, Mr. Deshmukh, who  was connected  with publication  of the Daily and M/s.  Darda Printo  Crafts Pvt. Ltd, who were owners and proprietors of the Daily, have committed offences punishable under Sections  499, and  500, 501, 502 read with Section 34 IPC. The complaint was filed on 2.2.87.      Learned  CJM   issued  process  against  all  the  five accused.  This   order  passed  by  the  learned  CJM    was challenged by the five accused before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded. The learned Judge quashed that order as he  was of the opinion that by publishing that news item, none of  the accused  had committee  any offence. That order was challenged  by the  complainant by  filing a petition in the High  Court under  Section 482.  Cr. P.C. The High Court was of  the opinion  that the  learned  Additional  Sessions Judge misinterpreted  the publication.  It was  also of  the view that  when the  learned CJM. had found prima facie case against the  accused and thought it fit to issue process, it was not proper for the learned Additional Sessions Judge, to set aside the order, by exercising the revisional power.      What is  contended  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the appellant is  that the High Court has taken a technical view of the  matter as regards the power of the Sessions Court to exercise its  revisional jurisdiction and has also committed and error  in observing  that the  report published  in  the Daily was misinterpreted by it.      As we  have stated earlier, the news item was published on 4.2.84.  The complaint  in that  behalf was  filed by the complainant on  2.2.87. The  news item merely disclosed what happened during  ht debate  which took place in the Assembly on 13.12.83.  It  stated  that  when  a  Question  regarding misappropriation of Government funds meant for Majalgaon and Jaikwadi was  put to the Minister concerned, the had replied

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

that a preliminary enquiry was made by the Government ant it disclosed that  some misappropriation  had taken place. When questioned further  about the  names of persons involved, he had stated  the names  of five person, including that of the complainant. The  said proceedings  came to  be published by the accused  in its Daily on 4.2.84. Because the name of the complainant was mentioned as one of the persons involved and likely to  be suspected  he filed  a  complaint  before  the learned CJM alleging that as a result of publications of the said report he had been defamed.      It  is   quite  apparent  that  what  the  accused  had published in  its newspaper  was an accurate and true report of the  proceedings of  the  Assembly.  Involvement  of  the respondent was  disclosed by the preliminary enquiry made by the Government.  If the  accused  bona  fide  believing  the version of  the Minister  to be true published the report in good faith  it cannot be said that they intended to harm the reputation of the complainant. It was a report in respect of public conduct  of public  servants who  were entrusted with public funds  intended to  be used for public good. Thus the facts and  circumstances of  the case disclose that the news items was  published for public good. All these aspects have been overlooked by the High Court.      We, therefore,  allow this  appeal, set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.