AMODHA PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD. v. VEMURI RADHA KRISHNA

#2. MR. VEMURI RADHA KRISHNA,, S/O. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 55 YEARS. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, AMODHA PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD., ASHWINI LAYOUT, HUDA HEIGHTS, ROAD NO.70, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE.

#3. K. SRINIVAS,, S/O. SINGARACHARYULU, AGED 50 YEARS. EDITOR, ANDHRA JYOTHI NEWS PAPER (DAILY) ASHWINI LAYOUT, HUDA HEIGHTS, ROAD NO.70, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE.

#4. MR. KOGANTI VENKATA SESHAGIRI RAO,, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER ON BEHALF OF ADDRESSEE NO.1, SY.NO.70/1 AND 2, VEDURUPAVULURU VILLAGE, MUSTABAD GRAM PANCHAYAT, GANNAVARAM MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT-521107. ...PETITIONER(S) AND

#1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT 8 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.Nos.1287, 1336, 1339 & 1340 of 2025 20.12.2025 Crl.R.C.No.1339 of 2025 Between:

#1. AMODHA PUBLICATIONS PVT LTD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VEMURI RADHA KRISHNA, ASHWINI LAYOUT, HUDA HEIGHTS, ROAD NO.70, JUBILEE HILLS HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE. 2.

#2. VEMURI RADHA KRISHNA, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. AMODHA PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD. ASHWINI LAYOUT, HUDA HEIGHTS, ROAD NO.70, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE. 3.

#3. KOGANTI VENKATA SESHAGIRI RAO,, S/O. NOT KNOWN, PRINTER PUBLISHER, ANDHRA JYOTHI TELUGU DAILY, ASHWINI LAYOUT, HUDA HEIGHTS, ROAD NO.70, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE. 4.

#4. K. SRINIVAS,, S/O. SINGARACHARYULU, EDITOR, ANDHRA JYOTHI TELUGU DAILY, ASHWINI LAYOUT, HUDA HEIGHTS, ROAD NO.70, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE.

#5. MR. M. MADHAVA RAO, BUREAU CHIEF, ANDHRA EDITION, ANDHRA JYOTHI TELUGU DAILY, ASHWINI LAYOUT, HUDA HEIGHTS, ROAD NO.70, JUBILEE HILLS, TELANGANA STATE. ...PETITIONER(S) AND

#1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravati, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT Crl.R.C.No.1340 of 2025 Between:

#1. VEMURI RADHA KRISHNA, S/O. NAGESWARA RAO, MANAGING DIRECTOR, AAMODA PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD., ASHWINI LAYOUT, 9 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.Nos.1287, 1336, 1339 & 1340 of 2025 20.12.2025 HUDA HEIGHTS, / ROAD NO.70, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE.

#2. KOGANTI VENKATA SESHAGIRI RAO, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE COMPLAINANT, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, ANDHRA JYOTHI TELUGU DAILY, ASHWINI LAYOUT, HUDA HEIGHTS, ROAD NO.70, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE.

#3. K. SRINIVAS, S/O. SINGARACHARYULU, EDITOR, ANDHRA JYOTHI TELUGU DAILY, ASHWINI LAYOUT, HUDA HEIGHTS, ROAD NO.70, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE.

#4. THE BUREAU CHIEF, ANDHRA EDITION, ANDHRA JYOTHI TELUGU DAILY, ASHWINI LAYOUT, HUDA HEIGHTS, ROAD NO.70, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STATE. ...PETITIONER(S) AND

#1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Amaravati, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT ! Counsel for the Petitioners : Ginjupalli Subba Rao ^Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Neelotpal Ganji < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1) (2017) 14 SCC 809 2) (1977) 4 SCC 137 3) (1977) 4 SCC 551 4) (2000) 6 SCC 195 5) 1980 Supp SCC 92 10 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.Nos.1287, 1336, 1339 & 1340 of 2025 20.12.2025 6) (1999) 3 SCC 134 7) 2025 SCC OnLine AP 3872 8) (1985) 1 SCC 641 9) (1994) 6 SCC 632 10) (2018) 6 SCC 676 11) (2015) 6 SCC 158 12) (2016) 7 SCC 221 13) (2015) 5 SCC 1 14) AIR 1957 SC 620 15) AIR 1962 SC 955 16) (1989) 2 SCC 574 17) 1965 SCC Online SC 256 18) (2015) 4 SCC 609 19) (2014) 14 SCC 638 20) (2013) 2 SCC 435 21) (2010) 7 SCC 578 22) (2013) 2 SCC 488 23) (2017) 3 SCC 528 24) (2015) 12 SCC 420 25) (1998) 5 SCC 749 26) Crl.M.C.No.2792/2017 dated 29.03.2023 27) (1972) 1 SCC 450 28) 1993 Supp (1) SCC 499 29) 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 1023 11 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.Nos.1287, 1336, 1339 & 1340 of 2025 20.12.2025 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos: 1287, 1336, 1339 & 1340 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: These Criminal Revision Cases 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 noticeably the same set of accused, all result from a connected factual condition. FACTUAL MATRIX:

#2. Criminal Revision Case No.1287 of 2025 has been filed feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.12.2023 rendered in C.C.No.27 of 2023 on the file of the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur, arising out of a complaint pertaining to a publication dated 20.06.2023 in the Andhra Jyothi Telugu Daily, wherein the accused persons, viz., the Company, its Managing Director, Printer & Publisher, Editor, and Bureau Chief, are alleged to have disseminated defamatory imputations against the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) by portraying a purported decline in passenger patronage, maladministration, and mismanagement under the incumbent dispensation; the State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, contends that such publication constitutes libel calculated to malign the reputation of the Government and its officials, whereas in rejoinder APSRTC 1 the BNSS 12 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.Nos.1287, 1336, 1339 & 1340 of 2025 20.12.2025 has placed on record official comparative data evidencing enhanced performance in 2022-23 vis-à-vis 2019-20, including augmentation of revenue by 17%, increase in earnings per kilometre by 21%, induction of new diesel and electric buses, provision of compassionate appointments, and receipt of Governmental financial assistance exceeding Rs.10,336 Crores since 2020, while further clarifying that only 214 buses were scrapped as against the misreported figure of 980, and highlighting initiatives such as maintenance of normal fares during festive seasons, expansion of cargo operations, and rationalization of interstate services with Telangana.

#3. Criminal Revision Case No.1336 of 2025 has been instituted feeling aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.4 of 2023 on the file of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Guntur, arising out of a complaint relating to a publication dated 15.08.2020 in the Telugu daily Andhra Jyothi under the caption “(cid:2005)(cid:2329) య(cid:1979)వత(cid:2031) (cid:2006)(cid:1733)!” (“Surveillance on the Judiciary”), wherein imputations were made alleging that the Government of Andhra Pradesh was subjecting Hon’ble Judges of the High Court to surveillance; the complainant, the Public Prosecutor of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, duly authorized under G.O.Rt.No.874, Home (SC-B) Department, dated 26.09.2022, contends that the said article was unverified, scandalous, and actuated by mala fides with intent to tarnish the reputation of the Government, thereby constituting offences of defamation punishable under Sections 499 and 502 of the Indian 13 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.Nos.1287, 1336, 1339 & 1340 of 2025 20.12.2025 Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C.,’) read with Section 120B of ‘the I.P.C.’; it is further averred that a legal notice dated 15.08.2020 was issued to the accused requiring an unconditional apology within fifteen days, which was not complied with, a complaint was filed within the period of limitation as extended by orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court during the Covid-19 pandemic.

#4. Criminal Revision Case No.1339 of 2025 has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 10.08.2023 passed in C.C.No.14 of 2023 on the file of the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur, arising out of a complaint relating to a publication dated 03.02.2023 in the Andhra Jyothi Telugu Daily, wherein the accused company together with its editorial team was alleged to have published false and scandalous imputations suggesting that the Chief Secretary of Andhra Pradesh travelled in the company of the Chief Minister’s OSD Krishna Mohan Reddy and one Naveen from Kadapa to Renigunta and thereafter to Vijayawada, purportedly linking the same to the sensitive context of the homicide of Late Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy; the Chief Secretary, by rejoinder dated 05.02.2023, clarified that his travel schedule had been pre-fixed four months in advance and requested that the rejoinder be published prominently on the same page accompanied by an apology, but the rejoinder was instead carried on 06.02.2023 at page 12 with distortions, thereby failing to comply with the demand; consequently, a legal notice dated 28.06.2023 was 14 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.Nos.1287, 1336, 1339 & 1340 of 2025 20.12.2025 issued calling upon the accused to tender an unconditional apology, which not having been complied with, led to the institution of the present complaint.

#5. Criminal Revision Case No.1340 of 2025 has been instituted feeling aggrieved the order dated 04.07.2023 passed in C.C.No.5 of 2023 on the file of the learned District & Sessions Judge, Guntur, arising out of a complaint pertaining to a publication dated 13.02.2020 in the Andhra Jyothi Telugu Daily, wherein the accused company along with its editorial team is alleged to have published false, malicious, and defamatory imputations to the effect that during the meeting between the (Former) Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Sri Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, and the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, the latter expressed dissatisfaction with the functioning of the State Government, investor confidence, and alleged threats to Kia Motors by Member of Parliament, by name Gorantla Madhav; the Government of Andhra Pradesh, having issued an official press note dated 12.02.2020 clarifying the factual position of the meeting, contends that the accused nevertheless carried the distorted version as a banner item, thereby intending to malign the reputation of the Government; and upon service of a legal notice dated 12.03.2020 demanding an unconditional apology, which was not complied with, the complaint came to be instituted.

#6. All the above-mentioned learned Trial Courts in which the complaints have been pending are referred to ‘the learned Trial Courts’. 15 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.Nos.1287, 1336, 1339 & 1340 of 2025 20.12.2025 CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS:

#7. Sri Ginjupalli Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of the Revision submits that the common orders of cognizance passed by ‘the learned Trial Courts’ in C.C.Nos.27 of 2023, 4 of 2023, 14 of 2023 and 5 of 2023 are wholly unsustainable in law and on facts and deserve to be set aside. The impugned orders are assailed as having been rendered mechanically, without due application of judicial mind, in disregard of the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence and the mandatory safeguards enshrined under ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and ‘the I.P.C.’

#8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submits that a bare perusal of the complaints and the accompanying material do not disclose a prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 read with Section 120 B of ‘the I.P.C.’ The orders of cognizance are completely bereft of reasons, do not advert to the essential ingredients of the alleged offences, - and merely reproduce the statutory provisions, thereby demonstrating application of judicial mind. ‘The learned Trial Courts’ have failed to satisfy themselves that the allegations, even if taken at face value, satisfy the - requirements of intention to harm reputation, publication of imputations concerning a determinate person, and actual or potential injury to reputation.

#9. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the very invocation of the provisions relating to criminal defamation is fundamentally 16 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.Nos.1287, 1336, 1339 & 1340 of 2025 20.12.2025 flawed, as the complaints do not disclose the requisite mens rea. The essential ingredient of Section 499 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ namely the intention to harm the reputation of the complainant or knowledge that such imputation will so harm, is conspicuously absent. The publications in question, news items dated

20.06.2023, 15.08.2020, 03.02.2023 and 13.02.2020 related reports, are asserted to be truthful narrations concerning the functioning of APSRTC and matters of public administration, highlighting dwindling passenger numbers, operational issues and governance concerns, made bona fide in public interest. These publications, it is urged, fall squarely within the first, second, third and tenth exceptions to Section 499 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ protecting truth published for public good, fair comment on public conduct of public servants, opinions respecting public questions, and communications made in good faith. In the absence of malice and presence of statutory exceptions, continuation of the prosecution under Sections 499 to 502 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is untenable.

#10. Sri Ginjupalli Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the complaints suffer from both mis joinder and non joinder of necessary - parties. It is pointed out that the impugned news items were admittedly - published by Aamoda Publications Private Limited, whereas the arraigned company in some of the cases is Aamoda Broadcasting Company Private Limited, which is a distinct legal entity and had no role in the printing or publication of the newspaper. In the absence of the principal publishing 17 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.Nos.1287, 1336, 1339 & 1340 of 2025 20.12.2025 company being impleaded as an accused, the directors of another company cannot be fastened with vicarious liability. ‘The learned Trial Courts’ have no occasion to verify this contention as full edition of the day was not filed. It is further emphasized that the petitioners have neither authored nor published the impugned articles and the complaints do not attribute any specific overt act or role to them; no imputation is stated to have been made by or at their instance, rendering their implication wholly baseless.

#11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners asserts that ‘the learned Trial Courts’ failed to adhere to the mandatory procedure prescribed under Sections 200 and 202 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ The complainant and the proposed witnesses were not examined on oath, and no inquiry or investigation was ordered prior to issuance of process, even though several of the petitioners reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The mandatory requirement of postponing issuance of process under Section 202 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ in cases where the accused are residing beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, has been violated, thereby striking at the root of jurisdiction. The failure to follow these provisions vitiates the cognizance, as the Court has assumed seisin of the matter without satisfying the statutory pre conditions intended to prevent vexatious prosecution.

#12. It is further submitted that the complainant has relied only on clippings of - the alleged news reports, without producing the complete newspaper issues containing the statutory particulars of printer, publisher and place of printing as 18 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.Nos.1287, 1336, 1339 & 1340 of 2025 20.12.2025 mandated under Section 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 2023 (for brevity ‘the Act’). In the absence of the full newspaper carrying the requisite declarations and imprints, no statutory presumption could be drawn as to who is the editor, printer or publisher, nor could criminal liability be inferred against the petitioners. The cognizance based on such incomplete and defective material evidence is therefore unsustainable.

#13. Sri Ginjupalli Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the complaints suffer from a fundamental lack of locus standi. No specific individual has been identified as defamed, and the pleadings are vague and bereft of particulars as to whose reputation was harmed and in what manner. The complaints are essentially sought to be maintained on behalf of the Government or its instrumentalities, which, it is argued, cannot in law maintain criminal defamation proceedings under Section 499 of ‘the I.P.C.’ The proper recourse, if any public servant was genuinely aggrieved, would lie under Section 199(6) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ at the instance of such individual public servant, and not through the route of Sections 199(2) or 199(4) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ invoking the machinery of the State for protection of its own “reputation”.

#14. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also assails the competence of the Public Prosecutor who instituted the complaints and the validity of the sanction granted under Section 199 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ It is pointed out that the complaints have been filed by a Public Prosecutor appointed under Section 24(1) of ‘the 19 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.Nos.1287, 1336, 1339 & 1340 of 2025 20.12.2025 Cr.P.C.,’ for the High Court, whereas only a Public Prosecutor appointed for the district under Section 24(3) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ or a Special Public Prosecutor appointed under Section 24(8) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ is legally authorized to institute a complaint before ‘the learned Trial Courts’ under Section 199(2) and (4) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ The clear statutory distinction between appointments under Section 24(1) and Section 24(3) has been overlooked, resulting in lack of authority to file the complaints. The sanction orders themselves are stated to be mechanical, passed without proper application of mind to the contents of the articles, and in some cases acknowledging that the impugned articles merely reflected operational issues and passenger trends in APSRTC, thereby negating any allegation of malice or falsehood.

#15. It is further urged that the prosecutions amount to a direct assault on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The right to comment on and criticize governmental policies, functioning of public corporations such as APSRTC, and conduct of public officials is an integral facet of democratic discourse, subject only to the reasonable restrictions enumerated in Article 19(2). Criminal prosecution of media houses and their directors for fair, factual and good faith reporting on matters of public importance, in the guise of protecting the “reputation” of the - State or its instrumentalities, amounts to an impermissible chilling effect on free speech. The failure to follow statutory procedure and the mechanical taking of 20 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.Nos.1287, 1336, 1339 & 1340 of 2025 20.12.2025 cognizance also infringe the petitioners’ right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, which encompasses the right to a fair, just and reasonable procedure and adherence to principles of natural justice.

#16. On the aforesaid grounds, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the common orders of cognizance passed by ‘the learned Trial Courts’ in all the four calendar cases are vitiated by non application of mind, lack of jurisdiction, procedural illegality and constitutional infirmities, and that the - complaints themselves are defective for want of proper parties, locus standi and material particulars. Continuation of the proceedings would subject the petitioners to undue hardship, irreparable loss and grave prejudice, and would operate as an abuse of the process of Court, intended to muzzle legitimate criticism and reportage. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the Criminal Revision Cases, set aside the impugned orders of cognizance, issuance of process on the Petitioners and quash all further proceedings in C.C. Nos.27 of 2023, 4 of 2023, 14 of 2023 and 5 of 2023. ARGUMENTS OF THE STATE:

#17. On the other hand, Mr. Neelotpal Ganji, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the Criminal Revision Cases and supports the orders of cognizance passed by ‘the learned Trial Courts’ as being legal, proper and well within the parameters of revisional scrutiny. It is submitted that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Court is only required to ascertain whether the 21 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.Nos.1287, 1336, 1339 & 1340 of 2025 20.12.2025 complaints and the material placed along with them disclose a prima facie case warranting issuance of process, and not to embark upon a meticulous appreciation of evidence or adjudication of defences which are matters for trial. The impugned orders record the satisfaction of ‘the learned Trial Courts’ that the allegations constitute offences punishable under Sections 499 to 502 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ read with Section 120 B of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and fall squarely within the framework of Section 199 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and no jurisdictional error, perversity - or patent illegality is demonstrated so as to warrant interference in revision.

#18. Adverting to Crl.R.C.No.1287 of 2025, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the publication dated 20.06.2023 in Andhra Jyothi Telugu Daily, portraying an alleged decline in passenger patronage, maladministration and mismanagement of APSRTC under the present dispensation, clearly contains defamatory imputations concerning an identifiable juristic person, namely APSRTC, which is an instrumentality of the State and closely identified with the Government’s public transport policy. The article, by suggesting systemic rot, financial decline and operational failure in the face of official comparative data evidencing enhanced performance in 2022 23 vis à vis 2019 20, such as a 17% increase in revenue, 21% rise in earnings per kilometre, induction of new diesel - - - - and electric buses, provision of compassionate appointments, substantial financial assistance exceeding Rs.10,336 crores, and the scrapping of only 214 buses as against the misreported figure of 980, demonstrates reckless disregard 22 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.Nos.1287, 1336, 1339 & 1340 of 2025 20.12.2025 for truth. The publication is thus not a fair or accurate report but a distorted narrative calculated to lower the reputation of APSRTC and, by necessary implication, the Government and its officials in the estimation of right thinking members of society, thereby fulfilling the ingredients of Section 499 of ‘the - I.P.C.,’ and disentitling the accused to any exception premised on truth, good faith or public good.

#19. In relation to Crl.R.C.No.1336 of 2025, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the article dated 15.08.2020 titled “(cid:2005)(cid:2329) య(cid:1979)వత(cid:2031) (cid:2006)(cid:1733)!” (“Surveillance on the Judiciary”) contains serious, scandalous and wholly unverified allegations that the Government of Andhra Pradesh was subjecting Hon’ble Judges of the High Court to surveillance. Such insinuations, which attribute to the State Government clandestine snooping on the higher judiciary, strike at the very root of constitutional governance and are, on their face, gravely defamatory. The complainant, the Public Prosecutor of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, duly authorized under G.O.Rt.No.874, Home (SC B) Department, dated 26.09.2022, has categorically averred that the article is devoid of factual - basis and actuated by mala fides with the intent to tarnish the reputation of the Government. The issuance of a legal notice dated 15.08.2020 calling upon the accused to tender an unconditional apology, and their failure to do so, coupled with the institution of the complaint within the period of limitation as extended by orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court during the Covid 19 pandemic, - 23 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.Nos.1287, 1336, 1339 & 1340 of 2025 20.12.2025 demonstrates not only compliance with procedural requirements but also continuing harm and obdurate refusal to rectify the defamatory wrong. The plea of fair comment or public interest is unavailable when the foundational facts are neither verified nor disclosed, and the imputations are couched in sensational terms directed at scandalizing the State.

#20. With respect to Crl.R.C.No.1339 of 2025, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that the publication dated 03.02.2023 in Andhra Jyothi Telugu Daily is ex facie defamatory inasmuch as it seeks to link the official travel of the Chief Secretary of Andhra Pradesh, in the company of the Chief Minister’s OSD Krishna Mohan Reddy and one Naveen, from Kadapa to Renigunta and thereafter to Vijayawada, with the sensitive context of the homicide of Late Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy. By placing these facts in a suggestive narrative, the accused have created a clear innuendo that the Chief Secretary was involved in or privy to questionable activities in relation to the said homicide, thereby casting serious aspersions on his integrity and impartiality. The rejoinder dated

05.02.2023, wherein the Chief Secretary clarified that his travel schedule had been fixed four months in advance and requested prominent publication of the rejoinder on the same page along with an apology, was not honoured; instead, a distorted rejoinder was carried on 06.02.2023 at page 12, without prominence and without any apology. This conduct, followed by the accused ignoring the subsequent legal notice dated 28.06.2023 seeking an unconditional apology, 24 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.Nos.1287, 1336, 1339 & 1340 of 2025 20.12.2025 unequivocally establishes mens rea, negates any suggestion of bona fide reportage, and aggravates the defamatory sting of the original publication.

#21. In so far as Crl.R.C.No.1340 of 2025 is concerned, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the publication dated 13.02.2020, carried as a banner item, attributes to the Hon’ble Prime Minister an expression of dissatisfaction with functioning of the State Government, investor confidence, and alleged threats to Kia Motors by Member of Parliament Gorantla Madhav during his meeting with the Hon’ble Chief Minister. These imputations, made in the teeth of an official press note dated 12.02.2020 issued by the Government clarifying the factual tenor of the meeting, are alleged to be false, malicious and calculated to convey that the Central leadership has lost faith in the State Government and that investors are apprehensive on account of political intimidation. The accused, despite being put on notice of the true facts through the press note and a subsequent legal notice dated 12.03.2020 demanding an unconditional apology, persisted in their distorted narrative and declined to make amends. Such conduct, it is urged, reveals a deliberate design to malign the Government in the eyes of the public and the investor community, thereby squarely attracting the mischief of Sections 499 and 502 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and excluding any statutory exception relating to fair comment, truth or public good. 25 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.Nos.1287, 1336, 1339 & 1340 of 2025 20.12.2025

#22. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further submits that all the complaints have been instituted strictly in conformity with Section 199 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ The State Government and its instrumentalities, including APSRTC, as also identified public officials such as the Chief Secretary, are “persons” within the meaning of Section 499 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ whose reputation is capable of being harmed, and the statute expressly contemplates prosecution for defamation on the basis of a complaint by a duly authorized Public Prosecutor in respect of imputations against the Government. The authorization under G.O.Rt.No.874 empowers the Public Prosecutor of the High Court to present such complaints directly before the Court of Session, and the distinction sought to be drawn between appointments under Section 24(1) and Section 24(3) of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ is, in the present context, purely academic and devoid of merit. Any alleged irregularity in examination under Sections 200 and 202 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ is, at best, a curable procedural lapse which has neither caused prejudice nor vitiates the cognizance, particularly in complaints governed by the special regime of Section 199(2) where the Sessions Court takes cognizance upon a written complaint by the Public Prosecutor.

#23. On the constitutional plane, the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that while the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is a cherished right, it is not absolute and is expressly subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of defamation. The right of the 26 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.Nos.1287, 1336, 1339 & 1340 of 2025 20.12.2025 press to criticize is co extensive with, but not superior to, the right of individuals and institutions to protect their reputation, which forms an integral part of the - right to life under Article 21. The publications in question, it is argued, are not mere bona fide criticisms of governmental policy, but deliberate, false and sensational imputations made in disregard of official clarifications and rejoinders, thereby crossing the line from fair comment into criminal defamation. In these circumstances, the continuation of the prosecutions cannot be branded as an abuse of process; on the contrary, the complaints represent a legitimate invocation of the criminal law to vindicate the reputation of the State, its instrumentalities and its senior functionaries.

#24. The Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, therefore, prays that all the Criminal Revision Cases be dismissed, that the orders of cognizance passed in C.C. Nos.27 of 2023, 4 of 2023, 14 of 2023 and 5 of 2023 be affirmed, and that the accused be directed to face trial so that the truth of the imputations and the availability of any statutory exceptions may be adjudicated on evidence before the competent Sessions Courts.

#25. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 27 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.Nos.1287, 1336, 1339 & 1340 of 2025 20.12.2025 POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

#27. In this respect, the following table will portray the date and nature of publication of alleged derogatory articles, the pertinent Government Orders authorizing the prosecution with related 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. 1287 of 2025 APSRTC. (20-06-2023) G.O.Rt.No.374 14-12-2023

#2. Crl.R.C.No. 1336 of 2025 Surveillance on the Judiciary. (15-08-2020) G.O.Rt.No.874 26-09-2022

#3. Crl.R.C.No. 1339 of 2025 Hello Tadepalli. (03-02-2023) G.O.Rt.No.1535 02-08-2023 DETAILS OF COMPLAINANT AND DATE AND TAKING COGNIZANCE CC.No.27 of 2023 30-12-2023 in the Court of the IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur CC.No.4 of 2023 04-07-2023 in the Court of the Learned District & Sessions Judge, Guntur CC.No.14 of 2023 10-08-2023 in the Court of the V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur 28 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.Nos.1287, 1336, 1339 & 1340 of 2025 20.12.2025

#4. Crl.R.C.No. 1340 of 2025 How is this fair. (13-02-2020) ANALYSIS: CC.No.5 of 2023 04-07-2023 in the Court of the Learned District & Sessions Judge, Guntur

#28. As per the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI 2 , Amar Nath v. State of Haryana 3 , Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra4, K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat5, V.C. Shukla v. State6 and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam7 orders of taking cognizance and summoning the Petitioners/Accused are intermediate in nature and revisable under Section 397(2) of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ Therefore, it is maintained that these Criminal Revision Cases are sustainable.

#29. This Court in Ushodaya Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of A.P8., has categorically held that the Public Prosecutor cannot be reduced to the role of a mere transmitting agency or “post office” of the Executive. The Public Prosecutor is recognized as a quasi independent statutory functionary, entrusted with a primary and continuing duty to the Court, to the justice system. -