USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD v. MR. CH. KIRON

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT Crl.R.C.No.514 of 2025 Between:

#1. USHODAYA ENTEPRISES PVT LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512. (A2)

#2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60 OCC. MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A3 AND A4)

#3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA 10 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD. (A5)

#4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O. CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. NAGULUPPALAPADU ...PETITIONER(S) AND

#1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT Crl.R.C.No.515 of 2025 Between:

#1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,, III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512. (A1)

#2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60, OCC. MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD.

#3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD.

#4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O. CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT. NAGULUPPALAPADU ...PETITIONER(S) 11 AND Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025

#1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT Crl.R.C.No.1199 of 2023 Between:

#1. CH KIRAN, S/O CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD ...PETITIONER AND

#1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT Crl.R.C.No.1200 of 2023 Between:

#1. M/S USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY 501512 ...PETITIONER AND

#1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT 12 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 Crl.R.C.No.317 of 2024 Between:

#1. M NAGESHWARA RAO, EDITOR, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION, USHODAYA ENTERPRISESS PVT LTD, R/O FLAT NO.303, URSINIA BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD 500070

#2. M.NAGESHWARA RAO,, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION, USHODAYA ENTERPRISESS PVT LTD, R/O FLAT NO.303, URSINIA BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD 500070 ...PETITIONER(S) AND

#1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati ...RESPONDENT **** DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED :

27.10.2025 13 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

#1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

#2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

#3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J _________________________ 14 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 * THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO + CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos: 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 512, 513, 514 and 515 of 2025; 1199, 1200 of 2023; 317 of 2024 % 27.10.2025 # Crl.R.C.No.502 of 2025 Between:

#1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512. (A1)

#2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60 OCC. MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A2)

#3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION, UDAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD. (A3 AND A4)

#4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O. MANDAL CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. (A5) NAGULUPPALAPADU ...PETITIONER(S) AND

#1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT 15 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 Crl.R.C.No.503 of 2025 Between:

#1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512. (A1)

#2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60, OCC. MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A2)

#3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD. (A3 AND A4)

#4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O. CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. (A5) NAGULUPPALAPADU ...PETITIONER(S) AND

#1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT Crl.R.C.No.504 of 2025 Between:

#1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512. 16 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025

#2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60 OCC. MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD.

#3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD.

#4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O. CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT. NAGULUPPALAPADU ...PETITIONER(S) AND

#1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT Crl.R.C.No.505 of 2025 Between:

#1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,, III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512. (A1)

#2. MR. CH. KIRAN,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60, OCC. MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD.

#3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD. (A3 AND A4) 17 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025

#4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O. CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. NAGULUPPALAPADU ...PETITIONER(S) AND

#1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT Crl.R.C.No.506 of 2025 Between:

#1. CH. KIRON, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60, OCC. MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A2)

#2. MRS. CH. SAILAJA KIRAN,, W/O. MR. CH. KIRON, OCC. MANAGING DIRECTOR, MARGADARSI PVT. LTD ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A3)

#3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR AND PUBLISHER, EENADU EDITION UDAYA TELUGU DAILY, ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD. (A4) PRADESH ANDHRA

#4. MR. NANNAPUNENI VISWAPRASAD,, CHIEF OF THE NEWS BUREAU, EENADU, C/O. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A6)

#5. MR. NARASIMHA REDDY,, BUREAU CHIEF, HYDERABAD, EENADU, C/O. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD.

#6. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O. 18 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. (A8) NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL

#7. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,, III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512. ...PETITIONER(S) AND

#1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT Crl.R.C.No.507 of 2025 Between:

#1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, REP BY MANAGING DIRECTOR III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512.

#2. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION, UDAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD.

#3. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O. CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT. NAGULUPPALAPADU ...PETITIONER(S) AND

#1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District 19 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 ...RESPONDENT Crl.R.C.No.508 of 2025 Between:

#1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512.

#2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60 OCC. MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A3 AND A4)

#3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD. (A5)

#4. . MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O. CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT. NAGULUPPALAPADU ...PETITIONER(S) AND

#1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT Crl.R.C.No.509 of 2025 Between:

#1. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 52, TELUGU DAILY, R/O. THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU 20 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL ...PETITIONER AND

#1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT Crl.R.C.No.510 of 2025 Between:

#1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,, III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512.

#2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60 OCC. MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD.

#3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD.

#4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O. CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT. NAGULUPPALAPADU ...PETITIONER(S) AND

#1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT 21 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 Crl.R.C.No.512 of 2025 Between:

#1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512.

#2. . MR. CH. KIRAN, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60 OCC. MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A3 AND A4)

#3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION, UDAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD. (A5)

#4. . MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O. CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT. NAGULUPPALAPADU ...PETITIONER(S) AND

#1. THE STATE OF AP, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT Crl.R.C.No.513 of 2025 Between:

#1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, REP BUY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512. (A1) 22 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025

#2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60, OCC. MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A2)

#3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION, UDAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD. (A3 ANDA4)

#4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O. CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT. NAGULUPPALAPADU ...PETITIONER(S) AND

#1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT Crl.R.C.No.514 of 2025 Between:

#1. USHODAYA ENTEPRISES PVT LTD, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512. (A2)

#2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60 OCC. MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD. (A3 AND A4)

#3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA 23 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD. (A5)

#4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O. MANDAL, CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. NAGULUPPALAPADU ...PETITIONER(S) AND

#1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT Crl.R.C.No.515 of 2025 Between:

#1. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD,, III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT - 501512. (A1)

#2. MR. CH. KIRON,, S/O. LATE CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGED 60, OCC. MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD.

#3. MR. M. NAGESHWARA RAO,, EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION UDAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, FLAT NUMBER 303, URSINIA BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD.

#4. MR. KANAPARTHI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 52, THE BUREAU CHIEF, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, R/O. MANDAL CHEERVANUPPALAPADU, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. NAGULUPPALAPADU ...PETITIONER(S) AND 24 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025

#1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by Its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh Amaravati, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT Crl.R.C.No.1199 of 2023 Between:

#1. CH KIRAN, S/O CH. RAMOJI RAO, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. MANAGING DIRECTOR, USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., ROAD NO. 36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD ...PETITIONER AND

#1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT Crl.R.C.No.1200 of 2023 Between:

#1. M/S USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT III FLOOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, RAMOJI FILM CITY, ANAZPUR VILLAGE, HAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD, RANGA REDDY 501512 ...PETITIONER AND

#1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Guntur District ...RESPONDENT 25 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 Crl.R.C.No.317 of 2024 Between:

#1. M NAGESHWARA RAO, EDITOR, EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION, USHODAYA ENTERPRISESS PVT LTD, R/O FLAT NO.303, URSINIA BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD 500070

#2. M.NAGESHWARA RAO,, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER EENADU TELUGU DAILY, ANDHRA PRADESH EDITION, USHODAYA ENTERPRISESS PVT LTD, R/O FLAT NO.303, URSINIA BLOCK, GREEN MEADOWS, AUTO NAGAR, VANASTHALIPURAM, HYDERABAD 500070 ...PETITIONER(S) AND

#1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati ...RESPONDENT ! Counsel for the Petitioners : P.Sai Surya Teja ^Counsel for the Respondent : Neelotpal Ganji < Gist: The Order of the Court was delivered by Dr. Justice Y.Lakshmana Rao :— For the convenience of exposition, this order is divided into the following parts :— A. FACTUAL MATRIX B. CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS C. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE 26 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 D. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION E. ANALYSIS F. CONCLUSION > Head Note: ? Cases referred:

#1. (2017) 14 SCC 809

#2. (1977) 4 SCC 551

#3. 1965 SCC OnLine All 337

#4. 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 826

#5. 1999 (6) SCC 667

#6. (2016) 7 SCC 221

#7. (2015) 5 SCC 1

#8. AIR 1957 SC 620

#9. AIR 1962 SC 955

#10. (1989) 2 SCC 574

#11. 1965 SCC Online SC 256

#12. (1985) 1 SCC 641

#13. (1994) 6 SCC 632

#14. (2015) 6 SCC 158

#15. (2018) 6 SCC 676

#16. (2015) 4 SCC 609

#17. (2014) 14 SCC 638

#18. (2013) 2 SCC 435 27 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025

#19. (2017) 3 SCC 528

#20. (2013) 2 SCC 488

#21. (2015) 12 SCC 420

#22. (1998) 5 SCC 749

#23. Crl.M.C.No.2792/2017 dated 29.03.2023

#24. (1972) 1 SCC 450

#25. 1993 Supp (1) SCC 499

#26. 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 1023

#27. (2009) 1 SCC 101 28 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos: 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 512, 513, 514 and 515 of 2025; 1199, 1200 of 2023; 317 of 2024 COMMON ORDER: These Criminal Revision Cases (sixteen in number) filed under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 are heard and disposed of by way of this common order, as they pertain to identical offences involving markedly the same set of accused, all result from a connected factual condition. FACTUAL MATRIX:

#2. Criminal Revision Case No.502 of 2025 is treated as the lead matter, as the factual matrix and legal issues involved in all connected cases are substantially same, occurring from a common set of circumstances.

#3. Criminal Revision Case No.502 of 2025 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 06.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.7 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The case revolves around two articles published in the Telugu daily "Eenadu", the first on

10.02.2023, which alleged that the death of Savara Bariki, aged 86, was due to starvation caused by the stoppage of pension payments. Immediately, on the same day i.e., on 10.02.2023 Government issued an official rejoinder disputing these claims and clarifying that relief measures, including rice distribution, were 1 the BNSS 29 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 provided. In spite of this clarification, a second article reiterating and intensifying the allegations appeared in "Eenadu" on 11.02.2023, forming the central factual basis for the litigation.

#4. Criminal Revision Case No.503 of 2025 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2023 passed in C.C.No.17 of 2023 on the file of the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix pertains to the publication of a purportedly libelous article in the main edition of Eenadu Telugu Daily on 09.03.2023, imputing corruption and impropriety in government coal procurement, which elicited an official rejoinder from the authorities on the same date. In spite of governmental refutation and issuance of a legal notice dated 16.03.2023 demanding unconditional apology and rectification, the accused allegedly persisted in disseminating defamatory material, thereby precipitating the institution of the present criminal complaint within the prescribed limitation period.

#5. Criminal Revision Case No.504 of 2025 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 06.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.8 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix encapsulates the publication of an allegedly libelous and defamatory article titled in the Eenadu Telugu Daily on 07.03.2023, wherein imputations of unlawful conduct and corruption were ascribed to public functionaries. Following the issuance of a formal governmental clarification, a legal notice dated 15.03.2023 30 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 demanded an unconditional apology from the accused for the per se defamatory publication, the non-compliance with said notice precipitated the initiation of criminal proceedings, duly within the statutory limitation period.

#6. Criminal Revision Case No.505 of 2025 has been preferred aggrieved by the order dated 06.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.9 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual substratum concerns the publication of an allegedly scurrilous and defamatory article in the Eenadu Telugu Daily on 04.01.2023, imputing blame to governmental authorities for grievous injuries suffered by a citizen. Consequent to the dissemination of said imputations, a statutory legal notice dated 09.02.2023 was issued demanding an unconditional public apology and rejoinder, which was met with non- compliance, thereby prompting the lodging of criminal proceedings within the statutorily prescribed limitation period.

#7. Criminal Revision Case No.506 of 2025 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 07.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.10 of 2023 on the file of the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix of the case reveals that on 13.04.2023, a defamatory and vituperative news article was published in the Eenadu Telugu Daily, Guntur Edition, allegedly maligning the Andhra Pradesh Crime Investigation Department (CID) while discharging its official duties. Consequent thereto, upon obtaining statutory 31 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 sanction vide G.O.Rt.No.742, Home (Legal-II) Department, dated 03.07.2023, the Public Prosecutor, State of Andhra Pradesh, instituted the complaint.

#8. Criminal Revision Case No.507 of 2025 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2023 passed in C.C.No.16 of 2023 on the file of the learned XII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix pertains to the publication of a libelous and scandalous article in the Eenadu Telugu Daily on 24.06.2023, alleging undue favouritism and financial impropriety by Shirdi Sai Electricals in government contract awards. After issuance of a legal notice dated 05.07.2023 demanding an unconditional apology and rejoinder, which was met with evasive response and non- compliance, the complaint was instituted within the statutory limitation period, asserting criminal conspiracy and defamation.

#9. Criminal Revision Case No.508 of 2025 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.6 of 2023 on the file of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix involves the publication of a per se defamatory article in the Eenadu Telugu Daily on 29.01.2023, falsely alleging financial impropriety in the tender process for Jagananna Vidya Kanuka. The Government issued a factual rejoinder on

30.01.2023 rebutting these claims and subsequently served a legal notice dated

13.02.2023 demanding an unconditional apology, which was disregarded, leading to the initiation of criminal proceedings. 32 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025

#10. Criminal Revision Case No.509 of 2025 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10.08.2023 passed in C.C.No.15 of 2023 on the file of the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix involves the publication of a per se defamatory article in the Eenadu Telugu Daily on 16.04.2023, falsely alleging poor quality and improper distribution of school shoes under the Jagananna Vidya Kanuka scheme. The Government issued a factual rejoinder on 17.04.2023 refuting these claims and, after non-compliance with a legal notice dated 05.05.2023 demanding an unconditional apology, criminal proceedings were initiated.

#11. Criminal Revision Case No.510 of 2025 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 22.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.12 of 2023 on the file of the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix concerns the publication of a libelous article in the Eenadu Telugu Daily on 20.01.2023, falsely alleging non-procurement of paddy and mismanagement in the procurement process. A governmental rejoinder was issued on

21.01.2023 clarifying the true facts, followed by a legal notice dated 09.02.2023 demanding an unconditional apology, which was not complied with, leading to the initiation of criminal proceedings.

#12. Criminal Revision Case No.512 of 2025 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 15.12.2023 passed in C.C.No.26 of 2023 on the file of the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual 33 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 matrix concerns the publication of a libelous article in the Eenadu Telugu Daily dated 18.07.2023, which alleged unauthorized construction activities, exorbitant loans, and favouritism toward MEIL in the Polavaram Project, thereby maligning the government and its officials. A legal notice dated 16.08.2023 demanded an unconditional apology and rejoinder, which was not complied with, resulting in the initiation of criminal proceedings.

#13. Criminal Revision Case No.513 of 2025 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2023 passed in C.C.No.21 of 2023 on the file of the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix concerns the publication of a libelous article in the Eenadu Telugu Daily on 12.05.2023, alleging undue favouritism, financial irregularities, and delayed construction in the Polavaram Project. The Government issued a rejoinder on the same day, and legal notice dated 26.07.2023 demanding an unconditional apology and corrective publication, which was not complied with, prompting initiation of criminal proceedings.

#14. Criminal Revision Case No.514 of 2025 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 09.02.2024 passed in C.C.No.3 of 2024 on the file of the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix concerns the publication of a libelous and defamatory article in the Eenadu Telugu Daily on 23.07.2023, falsely alleging inadequate funding and hardships faced by cooking staff under the Jagananna Gorumudda mid-day meal scheme. 34 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 Despite the Government issuing a factual rejoinder and legal notice demanding an unconditional apology, the accused failed to comply, leading to prosecution initiated within the statutory limitation period.

#15. Criminal Revision Case No.515 of 2025 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 21.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.11 of 2023 on the file of the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix involves the publication of a libelous and defamatory article in the Eenadu Telugu Daily on 22.02.2023, falsely alleging police brutality and torture of TDP Spokesperson Kommareddy Pattabhiram during his arrest in Gannavaram. A governmental rejoinder clarifying the facts was issued on 23.02.2023, followed by a legal notice dated 07.03.2023 demanding an unconditional apology, which was not complied with, leading to the initiation of criminal proceedings.

#16. Criminal Revision Case No.1199 of 2023 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10.08.2023 passed in C.C.No.15 of 2023 on the file of the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix pertains to the publication of a libelous and defamatory article in the Eenadu Telugu Daily on 16.04.2023, alleging defective distribution of school shoes under the Jagananna Vidya Kanuka scheme. The Government issued a rejoinder on 17.04.2023 rebutting the allegations and subsequently served a legal notice dated 05.05.2023 demanding an unconditional apology, which remained unheeded, prompting the institution of criminal proceedings. 35 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025

#17. Criminal Revision Case No.1200 of 2023 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10.08.2023 passed in C.C.No.15 of 2023 on the file of the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix concerns the publication of a per se defamatory article in the Eenadu Telugu Daily on 16.04.2023, falsely alleging poor quality and improper sizing of shoes distributed under the Jagananna Vidya Kanuka scheme. The Government issued a rejoinder on 17.04.2023 refuting the allegations and subsequently served a legal notice on 05.05.2023 demanding an unconditional apology, which was not complied with, thereby prompting the initiation of criminal proceedings.

#18. Criminal Revision Case No.317 of 2024 has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10.08.2023 passed in C.C.No.15 of 2023 on the file of the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur. The factual matrix concerns the publication of a libelous article in the Eenadu Telugu Daily on 16.04.2023, which falsely alleged defective distribution of shoes under the Jagananna Vidya Kanuka scheme. The Government issued a rejoinder on

17.04.2023 refuting these claims and subsequently served a legal notice dated

05.05.2023 demanding an unconditional apology, which was not complied with, resulting in the initiation of criminal proceedings.

#19. All the above mentioned learned courts in which the complaints are pending are referred to ‘the learned Trial Courts’. 36 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS:

#20. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the Revision, submits that the impugned orders of taking cognizance of offences passed by ‘the Trial Courts’ vitiated by manifest legal infirmities, being contrary to settled principles of law, devoid of evidentiary foundation, and repugnant to the probabilities emerging from the record. The impugned orders suffer from non-application of mind and warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

#21. It is submitted that ‘the learned Trial Courts’ concerned, while taking cognizance of offences under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ failed to advert to the foundational requirement of mens rea, namely the deliberate intention to cause harm to the reputation of the complainant. In the absence of any averment or material indicative of such intent, the invocation of Section 499 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is legally untenable. The complaints are conspicuously silent on any actual injury to reputation, thereby rendering the cognizance unsustainable.

#22. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the factual matrix of the cases squarely attracts multiple exceptions enumerated under Section 499 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ more particularly the First, Second, Third, and Tenth Exceptions. The publication in question was made in good faith, in public interest, and in pursuit of truth, thereby falling outside the purview of criminal 37 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 defamation. ‘The learned Trial Courts’ failed to undertake the requisite judicial scrutiny to ascertain the applicability of these exceptions prior to taking cognizance. It is further submitted that the complaints and the accompanying materials do not disclose a prima facie case under the alleged penal provisions. The essential ingredients of the offences such as malice, intent to defame, and resultant public injury are conspicuously absent. ‘The learned Trial Courts’ ought to have exercised judicial restraint and declined cognizance in the absence of such foundational elements.

#23. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the procedure prescribed under Sections 200 and 202 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ has been flagrantly violated. ‘The Trial Courts’ concerned proceeded to take cognizance without examining the complainant and witnesses on oath, which is a mandatory procedural safeguard. Moreover, since the some of the petitioners/Accused reside beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, the postponement of issuance of process under Section 202 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ was imperative. The failure to conduct an inquiry or investigation in such circumstances renders the orders void ab initio. The impugned orders are further assailed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The Petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of being heard prior to the passing of the cognizance order, thereby infringing their fundamental right to procedural fairness guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 38 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025

#24. It is submitted that the cognizance has been taken in a mechanical and perfunctory manner, without any judicial application of mind to the question whether the allegations, even if accepted at face value, constitute an offence under law. ‘The Trial Courts’ concerned failed to assess whether the complaint, read in conjunction with the preliminary inquiry, discloses any legal culpability warranting issuance of process. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that Petitioners have neither authored nor published the article dated 10.02.2023 in Eenadu newspaper. The complaint fails to attribute any specific role or actus reus to the petitioners, and the allegations are vague, omnibus, and bereft of particulars. The absence of individualised imputation militates against the very foundation of criminal liability.

#25. Even assuming arguendo that the Petitioners were connected to the publications, the articles in question were a truthful and factual narration of events concerning public welfare. The communication dated 14.02.2023 from the Special Chief Secretary, the legal notice dated 17.03.2023 issued by the Public Prosecutor, and the purported sanction under Section 199(4)(b) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ collectively establish that the deceased Savara Bariki was denied pension due to biometric failure and was alternatively provided rice. These facts corroborate the publication and negate any element of malice or falsity. The Petitioners submit that the complainant lacks locus standi to initiate the present proceedings, as no identifiable individual has been defamed. The complaints 39 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 are bereft of any specific allegation as to which statements in the publications are defamatory, how they impair the reputation of the Government, and which Petitioner is responsible for such imputation. It is further submitted that the Petitioner No.1, being a media entity, was exercising its constitutionally protected right under Article 19(1)(a) to report on matters of public interest and governance. The publications do not transgress the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), and the present prosecution is a colourable exercise aimed at stifling free speech.

#26. The sanctions accorded under Section 199(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ are legally unsustainable, having been granted without due application of mind and in contravention of statutory requirements. The complaints fail to satisfy the threshold requirement of defamation of the State, and the sanctions are liable to be quashed as an abuse of process. The Petitioners submit that the complaints are actuated by malice and is intended to muzzle legitimate criticism of public policy and governance. It is well settled that the right to comment on public affairs encompasses the right to criticise public officials and their actions. The present proceedings are an affront to democratic discourse and constitutional freedoms. It is further submitted that governmental entities, local authorities, and institutions exercising sovereign functions are precluded from initiating defamation proceedings under Section 499 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ as such actions are barred by law and contrary to public policy. 40 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025

#27. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submits that continuation of proceedings in these calendar cases, pending adjudication of the present revision, would cause irreparable harm, prejudice, and hardship. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the Petitioners, and the interests of justice warrant immediate intervention by this Court. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE:

#28. On the other hand, Mr. Neelotpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would argue that the accused persons who stand arraigned for having engaged in a concerted and premeditated course of conduct that squarely attracts penal liability under Sections 500, 501, and 502 read with Section 120-B of ‘the I.P.C.’ The gravamen of the complaints pertaining to the publication of two successive articles in the Telugu Daily "Eenadu," dated

10.02.2023 and 11.02.2023 respectively, which are demonstrably defamatory per se, bereft of factual substratum, and calculated to scandalize and vilify the Government of Andhra Pradesh and its officers in the estimation of the public.

#29. It is the prosecution’s case that Accused No.1, the corporate entity owning and publishing "Eenadu," acting through Accused No.2, its Managing Director, has orchestrated and supervised the editorial process culminating in the impugned publications. Accused Nos. 3 to 5, being the Printer & Publisher, Editor, and Bureau Chief respectively, have actively participated in the selection, approval, and dissemination of the defamatory content, thereby rendering 41 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 themselves jointly and severally liable under the law. The article dated

10.02.2023, captioned “(cid:2023)ంఛ(cid:2008) (cid:2033)(cid:2108)ం(cid:1972).. ఆక(cid:2159) చం(cid:2030)(cid:2244)ం(cid:1972)!,” imputes that the death of one Savara Bariki, aged 86, was occasioned by starvation due to cessation of pension payments. This assertion is not only factually incorrect but also made with reckless disregard for the truth and in suppression of contemporaneous and verifiable facts, including the provision of rice through the Public Distribution System and special relief measures undertaken by the State. Statements of the deceased’s nephew and the attending physician unequivocally attribute the demise to age-related ailments, thereby negating the starvation narrative.

#30. In spite of issuance of a rejoinder by the Government on 10.02.2023 clarifying the factual matrix, the accused persons, in brazen defiance of journalistic ethics and statutory obligations, proceeded to publish a follow-up article on 11.02.2023 under the caption “(cid:2023)ంఛ(cid:2008) ఇవ(cid:2331) (cid:1886)(cid:2006)(cid:1683) (cid:2030)ద(cid:2125)కం (cid:1767)ల(cid:1971)?” thereby compounding the defamatory sting and exhibiting contumacious disregard for truth and official clarification. The impugned publications fail to satisfy any of the statutory exceptions enumerated under Section 499 of ‘the I.P.C.’ They cannot be shielded under the doctrine of fair comment or public interest reportage, as the same were published without reasonable verification, in a sensationalized manner, and with manifest malice. The deliberate use of 42 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 provocative captions and suppression of exculpatory facts evinces a culpable mens rea and a concerted intent to defame.

#31. The prosecution further submits that the distinct roles and responsibilities of the accused persons ranging from editorial oversight to publication and dissemination establish their complicity and common intention commission of the offence. The law is well settled that every person who authorizes, concurs in, or facilitates the publication of defamatory matter is equally liable. The acts of the accused attract the rigors of Section 499 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ constituting criminal conspiracy to defame, and are punishable under Sections 500 (defamation), 501 (printing defamatory matter), and 502 (sale of defamatory matter). The issuance of a statutory legal notice dated 17.03.2023 demanding an unconditional apology and corrective publication has elicited no compliance, thereby aggravated the defamatory conduct and demonstrated contumacy. The cause of action arose on 10.02.2023 and continues in view of the subsequent publication and non-compliance with lawful demands. The complaint has been instituted within the period of limitation prescribed under law and is, therefore, legally tenable.

#32. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that the learned Trial Court had rightly appreciated the material available. There was no flagrant miscarriage of justice. There were no perverse findings. There was no irregularity let alone material irregularity. The order impugned is not vitiated by 43 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 manifest error of law or procedure which had resulted in miscarriage of justice. The impugned order doesn’t suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Hence, it is urged to dismiss these Criminal Revision Cases.

#33. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:

#34. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the impugned orders of taking cognizance of offences are correct, legal, and proper with respect to taking cognizance of the alleged offences, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?”

#35. In this regard, the following table will depict the date and nature of publication of alleged defamatory articles, the relevant Government Orders sanctioning the prosecution with relevant dates and details of the complaints, Courts and the dates of taking cognizance. Sl. NO. CASE NO. ALLEGED DEFAMATORY ARTICLES PUBLISHED GOVERNMENT ORDER SANCTIONING PROSECUTION AND DATE

#1. Crl.R.C.No. 502 of 2025 Pension gone hunger has taken away the life. (10-02-2023) G.O.Rt.No.290 22-05-2023

#2. Crl.R.C.No. 503 of 2025 The coal tender goes to Adani. (09-03-2023) G.O.Rt.No.75 19-07-2023 DETAILS OF COMPLAINANT AND DATE AND TAKING COGNIZANCE CC.No.7 of 2023 06-07-2023 in the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Guntur CC.No.17 of 2023 30-08-2023 in the Court of the II Additional District 44 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025

#3. Crl.R.C.No. 504 of 2025 The diesel mafia. (07-03-2023) G.O.Rt.No.151 01-06-2023

#4. Crl.R.C.No. 505 of 2025

#5. Crl.R.C.No. 506 of 2025

#6. Crl.R.C.No. 507 of 2025

#7. Crl.R.C.No. 508 of 2025 A senior citizen sustained the amputation of her leg as a consequence of the chief ministers meeting. (04-01- 2023) Huge conspiracy against Margadarsi. (13-04-2023) Jagan and Vishweshwar Reddy are alleged to have amassed ₹92,000 crores in combined assets. (24-06-2023) They bought kits… and embezzled crores. (29-01-2023)

#8. Crl.R.C.Nos. 1200 &1199 of 2023 509 of 2025 317 of 2024 The Vidyakanuka shoes are not suitable for students. (16-04-2023) G.O.Rt.No.171 11-04-2023 G.O.Rt.No.746 03-07-2023 G.O.Rt.No.88 16-08-2023 G.O.Ms.No.35 31-03-2023 G.O.Rt.No.119 04-07-2023 & Sessions Judge, Guntur CC.No.8 of 2023 06-07-2023 in the Court of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Guntur CC.No.9 of 2023 06-07-2023 in the Court of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Guntur CC.No.10 of 2023 07-07-2023 in the Court of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur CC.No.16 of 2023 30-08-2023 in the Court of the XII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur CC.No.6 of 2023 04-07-2023 in the Court of the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Guntur CC.No.15 of 2023 in the Court of the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, 45 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025

#9. Crl.R.C.No. 510 of 2025 Statements gone to the winds… grains eaten by rats. (20-01-2023) G.O.Rt.No.10 31-03-2023

#10. Crl.R.C.No. 512 of 2025

#11. Crl.R.C.No. 513 of 2025 Payments totalling Rs 739 crores and 22 paise were disbursed to the contractor despite non-fulfilment of the contractual obligations. (18-07-2023) Polavaram… failure of a global scale. (12-05-2023) G.O.Rt.No.453 16-10-2023 G.O.Rt.No.381 28-08-2023

#12. Crl.R.C.No. 514 of 2025 The midday meal exists only in words, not in reality. (23-07-2023) G.O.Rt.No.22 11-01-2024

#13. Crl.R.C.No. 515 of 2025 Pattabi was beaten up. (22-02-2023) G.O.Rt.No.466 02-05-2023 Guntur 10-08-2023 CC.No.12 of 2023 21-07-2023 in the Court of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur CC.No.26 of 2023 15-12-2023 in the Court of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur CC.No.21 of 2023 in the Court of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur 07-11-2023 CC.No.3 of 2024 in the Court of the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur 09-02-2024 CC.No.11 of 2023 21-07-2023 in the Court of the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur 46 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 ANALYSIS:

#36. Regarding maintainability of revision, the following important two judgments, relied on by the learned Senior Counsel, throw a light on the point. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI2, at paragraph Nos.16 to 18, 21 and 22 held as under: “16. There are three categories of orders that a court can pass—final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction—that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the court can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order. 17. The concept of an intermediate order first found mention in Amar Nath v. State of Haryana [Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137] in which case the interpretation and impact of Section 397(2) CrPC came up for consideration. This decision is important for two reasons. Firstly, it gives the historical reason for the enactment of Section 397(2) CrPC and secondly, considering that historical background, it gives a justification for a restrictive meaning to Section 482 CrPC. 18. As far as the historical background is concerned, it was pointed out that the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 and the 1955 Amendment gave wide powers to the High Court to interfere with orders passed in criminal cases by the subordinate courts. These wide powers were restricted by the High Court and this Court, as matter of prudence and not as a matter of law, to an order that “suffered from any error of law or any legal infirmity causing injustice or prejudice to the accused or was manifestly foolish or perverse” (Amar Nath case [Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137 ] , SCC p. 140, para 4). This led to the courts being flooded with cases challenging all kinds of orders and thereby delaying prosecution of a case to the detriment of an accused person. 21. The concept of an intermediate order was further elucidated in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551 by contradistinguishing a final order and an interlocutory order. This decision lays down the principle that an intermediate order is one which is interlocutory in nature but when reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings and thereby resulting in a final order. Two such intermediate orders immediately come to mind—an order taking cognizance of an offence and summoning an accused and an order for framing charges. Prima facie these orders are interlocutory in nature, but when an order taking cognizance and summoning an accused is reversed, it has the effect of terminating the proceedings against that person resulting in a final order in his or her favour. Similarly, an order for framing of charges if reversed has the effect of discharging the accused person and resulting in a final order 2 (2017) 14 SCC 809 47 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 in his or her favour. Therefore, an intermediate order is one which if passed in a certain way, the proceedings would terminate but if passed in another way, the proceedings would continue. 22. The view expressed in Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137 and Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551 was followed in K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat (2000) 6 SCC 195 wherein a revision petition was filed challenging the taking of cognizance and issuance of a process. It was said: 201, para 11) “11. … It is now well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as for Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana (1977) 4 SCC 137, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 4 SCC 551, V.C. Shukla v. State 1980 Supp SCC 92 and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam (1999) 3 SCC 134. The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objection raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated. Hence, as per the said standard, the order was revisable.”

#37. Facts in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra3, are that an appeal by (emphasis supplied)” special leave challenged the Bombay High Court’s rejection of the appellant’s revision under Section 397(1) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ on the ground of non- maintainability under Section 397(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ The case arose from a 1974 press conference where the appellant allegedly defamed A.R.Antulay, then Law Minister of Maharashtra, leading to prosecution under Section 500 of ‘the I.P.C.’ The Sessions Court took cognizance directly under Section 199(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and after framing charges, the appellant’s revision was dismissed as barred by Section 397(2). The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the scope of the High Court’s revisional and inherent powers under Sections 397 and 482, holding that while revisional powers cannot be exercised in 3 (1977) 4 SCC 551 48 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 respect of interlocutory orders, the inherent power remains unaffected to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. The Court emphasized that such inherent jurisdiction should be used sparingly, for example, to quash proceedings instituted illegally or without jurisdiction. It further observed that denying an accused any remedy against manifestly illegal proceedings would be unjust, and therefore, the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 must remain available to ensure fairness and prevent miscarriage of justice.

#38. Indeed, the impugned orders of taking cognizance of offences and summoning the Petitioners/Accused are intermediate in nature as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Amar Nath, Madhu Limaye and Girish Kumar Suneja supra. Hence, it is held that these Criminal Revision Cases are maintainable.

#39. After examining the submissions and the record, the Court finds that the learned Trial Court’s cognizance against the Petitioners is legally flawed. Defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ requires intent to harm reputation, which is absent here, as the complaint contains no specific defamatory statements or evidence of malice. The impugned publication, supported by official State communications on pension delays and welfare provisions, merely reported public welfare issues without animus. The Petitioners’ reliance on the statutory exceptions under Section 499 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ relating to public good, conduct of public servants, reporting of public matters, 49 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 and good-faith caution is prima facie valid. The learned Sessions Judge’s failure to consider these exceptions shows non-application of mind.

#40. The definition in Section 11 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ as that in the General Clauses Act, 18974 uses the word “includes”, which, it is well known indicates that the definition is not intended to be exhaustive. In Jabbar v. State5 at paragraph No.15 it is held that the term “person” has not been defined in a technical or narrow sense in ‘the I.P.C.’ Sec. 11 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ defines it in the same way as the term “person” as defined in Sec. 3(42) of ‘the Act.’ At paragraph No.16, in Jabbar supra, it is further held that this is hardly a definition. It seems to be only an indication of the intention of the legislature to use the word “person” in a wide sense to include even artificial persons. The word person is said to be derived from “persona” which stood for the mask worn by an actor on the stage amongst the ancient Greeks and Romans. In law it implies the juristic personification of an entity which may or may not be an animated being. The use of the word “includes” also indicates that the term defined retains its ordinary meaning but is enlarged to include matters which the ordinary would not include. Definition is inclusive in nature.

#41. In Chief Education Officer, Salem v. K.S. Palanichamy6, at paragraph No.12 it is held that the term ‘person’ has been defined in Section 11 of ‘the 4 the Act 5 1965 SCC OnLine All 337 6 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 826 50 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 I.P.C.,’ and the same is in pari materia with Section 3(42) of ‘the Act.’ Obviously, the definition is inclusive. As per the definition, the word ‘person’ includes any Company or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not. While interpreting these provisions, the Courts have held that the State and its instrumentalities are juristic persons-vide judgment in Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India7.

#42. Further, to constitute defamation, as envisaged in Section 499 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ either the imputation should have been intended to harm the reputation of such person or at least the person making the said imputation should have had knowledge or reasons to believe that the same will harm the reputation of the other. This provision came to be interpreted on several occasions by various High Courts as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein, consistently, the Courts have taken the view that one of the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 499 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is “mens rea”.

#43. Applying the above principles, if we analyse the definition of defamation in Section 499 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ it will be crystal clear that it is an offence involving personal malicious intent, which is evident from the fact that one of the essential ingredients is either intention to harm or knowledge or reasons to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the other. 7 1999 (6) SCC 667 51 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025

#44. In Indian law, defamation is codified under Sections 499 and 500 of ‘the I.P.C.’ Section 499 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ outlines defamation as any spoken or written words or visible representations made with the intention to harm the reputation of a "person." Section 499 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ defines defamation with four explanations and ten exceptions. The penal provision is under Section 500 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ for punishment for defamation. Section 501 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ printing or engraving the matter known to be defamatory, Section 502 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter. Section 499 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ speaks of a person whose reputation, by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representation, make or publishes any imputations concerning any person intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that imputation will harm the reputation of such person is said to defame that person, excepted in the exceptions 1 to 10 of Section 499 of ‘the I.P.C.’

#45. The term "person" has been interpreted include individuals, associations, and identifiable institutions. However, the government, as an abstract sovereign entity, is not considered a "person" for the purposes of defamation unless the statement targets specific departments or officials with imputations of misconduct. Explanation 2 to Section 499 explicitly protects fair criticism of public servants in the discharge of their public functions, provided it is made in good faith. Thus, generalized criticism of the government such as 52 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025 calling it inefficient or corrupt does not ordinarily attract criminal defamation unless it is demonstrably false and malicious.

#46. The Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), which includes the freedom of the press. This right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), including defamation. The press, often referred to as the Fourth Estate, plays a vital role in democracy by scrutinizing public institutions and disseminating information.

#47. The constitutionality of criminal defamation was challenged Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India8, wherein the Supreme Court upheld Sections 499 and 500 of ‘the I.P.C.’ The Court emphasized that the right to reputation is a facet of Article 21, Right to Life and Personal Liberty and must be balanced against the right to free speech. However, the judgment also clarified that criticism of government functioning, even if harsh, cannot be equated with defamation unless it is shown to be malicious and false. It is observed that defamation cannot be used as a political tool, and that calling a government inefficient or unfit does not attract criminal liability. This ruling is pivotal in protecting media entities from frivolous defamation suits while preserving the dignity of individuals. 8 (2016) 7 SCC 221 53 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.502/2025 & batch 27.10.2025

#48. In Subramanian Swamy supra at paragraph No. 150 it was observed that the excerpt underscores that while Shreya Singhal v. Union of India9 emphasized the need for narrowly tailored restrictions on free speech, criminal defamation does not fall within that narrow scope. The term “defamation” in Article 19(2) has existed since the inception of the Constitution and includes criminal defamation, which is a pre-constitutional law. Attempts to interpret defamation as requiring a nexus with public disorder are inconsistent with constitutional principles. Precedents like Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P.,10 and Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar11 pertain to different offences and cannot be extended to redefine defamation. Furthermore, reliance on S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram 12 must be contextualized, as that case dealt with censorship of a film addressing caste-based reservation, not defamation, and its observations were specific to the facts and sensitivities involved.

#49. It was further observed that in a democratic society, freedom of expression is paramount and cannot be curtailed merely due to dissent or criticism of policies or opinions, as such expressions do not amount to defamation. It clarified that disapproval alone does not constitute criminal defamation and emphasized the need to understand its legal contours accurately. The Court's analysis focused on balancing free speech with “special