Criminal Petition No. 3549 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3549 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI M. KRISHNA REDDY S/O MUNIVENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC.:POLITICIAN (EX-MLA) RESIDING AT SUNANDAMMA NILAYA ANJANI LAYOUT, CHINTAMANI CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 562 125. (BY SRI M.ARUNA SHYAM, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SMT.KEERTHANA NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER AND: SRI N. R. RAMESH S/O LATE NARAYAN RAJU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT: NO.2910, 14TH CROSS BANASHANKARI II STAGE BENGALURU – 560 070. (BY SRI MOHAN REDDY, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENT 2 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.3478/2024 ARISING OUT OF PCR NO.17136/2022 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 499 AND 500 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LD.42nd A.C.M.M (SPL.COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES AGAINST SITTING AS WELL AS FORMER MPs/MLAs TRIABLE BY MAGISTRATE IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA) AT BENGALURU. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.3478 of 2024 arising out of P.C.R.No.17136 of 2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC. 2. Heard Sri M. Aruna Shyam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Mohan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:- The petitioner is the accused and respondent is the complainant. On 19-11-2019, it appears, the petitioner/accused seeks to register a complaint before the Sampangiramnagar Police Station which does not get registered but gets a non-cognizable report in NCR No.189 of 2019. On 25-12-2019 the complainant was called to the Police Station and he was explained the ramification of such statements being made by him. A few days thereafter, the complainant walks to the doors of the learned Magistrate invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and registers P.C.R.No.17136 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC. On 17-03-2023, three years after registration of PCR, sworn statement of the complainant is recorded and on 05-12-2023 after about 9 months, remaining part of the sworn statement is recorded. On 06-02-2024 the learned Magistrate takes cognizance for offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC and issues summons to the petitioner. Taking of cognizance and issuance of summons is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4
Legal Reasoning
14. It is well settled principle of law that before ordering for issuance of process against the Accused, the Court has to decide whether prima facie case is made out or not on the basis of the materials placed before it. Before exercising power under 9 Section 204 Cr.P.C., it is the duty of the court to see that, whether the Complainant has made out sufficient grounds for issuance of process. In the decision reported in - AIR 2010 S.C.2261” (Shivjee Sing -Vs- Narendra Tiwari), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that - the expression "sufficient ground" used in section 203, 204 and 209 of Cr.P.C., means satisfaction that prima-facie case is made out against the person Accused of committing an offence and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction. 15. In another decision reported in AIR 2014 S.C. 957 (Fiona Shrikhande -Vs- State of Maharashtra), it is observed that - at the complaint stage, the Magistrate is merely concerned with the allegations made out in the complaint and has only to prima-facie satisfy whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the Accused and it is not the province of the Magistrate of esquire into a detailed discussion on the merits or demerits of the case. 16. Thus, in the light of the rulings referred supra, on an overall appreciation of the facts of the case, material placed before the court and also law applicable, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Complainant has made out sufficient grounds for proceeding against the Accused for the offence under section 499 of I.P.C., which is punishable under 500 of I.P.C and thereby made out the grounds for issuance of summons for attendance of the Accused before this court. In the result, I answer Point No.1 in the AFFIRMATIVE. 17.Point No.2:- For the reasons assigned and the findings given on Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
Arguments
4. The learned senior counsel Sri M. Aruna Shyam appearing for the petitioner would contend that the complaint is a counter- blast to what the petitioner had already registered against the complainant. It is registered only to wreak vengeance against the petitioner. There is suppression of material facts in the complaint. The complaint is cleverly drafted without the ingredients being met. The learned senior counsel would further contend that in a public life it is necessary for the people’s representatives to be a little thick-skinned and not too sensitive. Above all, he would contend that the order of taking cognizance does not meet the law as laid down by this Court as it suffers from non-application of mind. He would contend that ingredients necessary for offences under Sections 499 and 500 IPC are not met in the case at hand. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would refute the submissions to contend that it was a derogatory statement made by the petitioner against the complainant. He calls him a mad cap, idiot and ignorant person. If this cannot form the offence under Sections 49 and 500 of the IPC, the learned counsel would submit, then what else it could be. 5 Therefore, he would submit that the Court having already taken cognizance for the offence, it is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full-blown trial. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. On 06-03-2018 the petitioner is said to have been elected as a Deputy Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly. The respondent calls for a press conference where it is alleged that he has made certain derogatory or defamatory statements against the petitioner who was then elected as a Deputy Speaker. Based upon those statements, the petitioner registers a complaint before the Sampangiramnagar Police Station alleging that on 14-11-2019 the respondent calls for a press conference and makes defamatory statements against the petitioner. On 25-12-2019 the respondent was called to the Police Station and statements of both the petitioner and the respondent were taken and an NCR was 6 rendered. The Police on 20-01-2020 closes the proceedings of a complaint that was sought to be registered by the petitioner on 19-11-2019. Though an NCR is registered, I deem it appropriate to notice the gist of the NCR. It reads as follows: “…. …. …. 5. ¸ÀAzÀ±Àð£ÀzÀ GzÉÝñÀ F zÀÆj£À ¸ÁgÁA±ÀªÉãÉAzÀgÉ ¢-14/11/2019 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 11-00 UÀAmÉUÉ ºÉÆÃmÉ¯ï «.n.¥ÁågÀqÉʸï, ©©JA¦ PÉÃAzÀæ PÀbÉÃj »A¨sÁUÀ, fAiÉÆà ºÉÆÃmɯï JzÀÄgÀÄ, ¸ÀA¥ÀAVgÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉA. E°è ²æÃ.J£ï.Dgï.gÀªÉÄñï, ªÀPÁÛgÀgÀÄ ¨ÉA-£ÀUÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉA-£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè, ©eɦ ºÀUÀÆ ªÀiÁf DqÀ½vÀ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ £ÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ ©©JA¦ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀwæPÁUÉÆÃ¶Ü PÀgÉzÀÄ ¥ÀwæPÁUÉÆöÜAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀzÉ EgÀĪÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¸ÀÄ¢ÝAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ, ¸ÁA«zsÁ¤PÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ G¥À ¸À¨sÁzsÁåPÀëgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É DzsÁgÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀÄ¢Ý ²æÃ.J£ï.Dgï.gÀªÉÄñï gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÀå PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ ¤ÃrzÀ zÀÆgÀÄ, EvÁå¢. ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, gÀ»vÀ, ¸ÀļÀÄî 6. Counter Party Details: Name: N.R.RAMESH, S/o Address: VAKTARARU BENGALURU CITY AND DISTRICT, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA” After the closure of the case, the complainant registers a private complaint in P.C.R.No.17136 of 2022 on 13-12-2019 for offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC. Three years thereafter a partial sworn statement is recorded and nine months thereafter complete sworn statement is recorded by marking 7 Exhibits C1 to C3. A little while thereafter, witnesses were examined and then comes an order of cognizance on 06-02-2024 close to 5 years after registration of the complaint. The reason rendered for taking of cognizance is as follows: “…. …. …. 10. The Complainant in the complaint and also in his Sworn Statement has stated that the Accused has made a defamatory statement against him in the above article. As already stated, the Complainant has alleged the commission of the offence under section 499 of I.PC., which is punishable under section 500 of I.P.C. On going through the complaint averments and the Sworn Statement of the Complainant, prima- facie, it goes to show that the Complainant is defamed. The Complainant in his Sworn Statement reiterated the complaint averments. 11. In support of the said Sworn Statement, the Complainant has produced Kannada Daily Newspaper “Udayavani” dated 17-11-2019, which is marked as Ex.C.01, Pen-Drive which is marked as Ex.C.02 and certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, by way of Affidavit is marked as Ex C.03. On going through the contents of the said documents, it is found that they prima-facie support the version of the Complainant. Moreover, the Complainant has examined Two Witnesses on his behalf as CW-2 and CW-3. They have also deposed in the lines of the Sworn Statement of the Complainant. They have also deposed that the reputation of the Complainant was lowered in their eyes and also the public in general, when they heard and read the article published in the Daily Newspaper which are already marked through the Complainant 12. The offence of defamation is defined under section 499 of I.P.C., which reads as under: “499. Defamation.- Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by 8 visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person. Explanation 1.- It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2.- It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3.- An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4.- No imputation is said to harm a person’s герutation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful". 13. A meaningful reading of the above provisions, along with the complaint averments, Sworn Statement of the Complainant and his Witnesses and the documents produced, this stage, this Court is of the opinion that the complaint discloses the ingredients of the offences alleged to have been committed by the Accused and that the material brought on record as a result of inquiry under section 200 of Cr.P.C., prima- facie constitutes valid evidence which, if believed and un- rebutted at the trial would result in conviction.
Decision
O R D E R Office to register Criminal case against the Accused for the offence under section 499 of I.P.C., punishable under section 500 of I.P.C., in Register No. III and issue summons to the Accused, if Sub-section 3 and 4 of section 204 of Cr.P.C. are complied.” 10 Summons is issued to the petitioner under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 8. The offences alleged are the ones punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC. They read as follows: “499. Defamation.—Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. Explanation 1.—It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2.—It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3.—An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4.—No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. Illustrations (a) A says—“Z is an honest man; he never stole B's watch”; intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B's 11 watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions. (b) A is asked who stole B's watch. A points to Z, intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions. (c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B's watch intending it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions. First Exception—Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published.—It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact. Second Exception—Public conduct of public servants.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Third Exception—Conduct of any person touching any public question.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Illustration respecting Z's It is not defamation in A to express in good faith any in petitioning opinion whatever Government on a public question, in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public question, in presiding or attending at such meeting, in forming or joining any society which invites the public support, in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate for any situation in the efficient discharge of the duties of which the public is interested. conduct Fourth Exception.—Publication of reports of proceedings of courts.—It is not defamation to publish a 12 substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings. Explanation.—A Justice of the Peace or other officer holding an enquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of the above section. Fifth Exception.—Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Illustrations (a) A says—“I think Z's evidence on that trial is so contradictory that he must be stupid or dishonest.” A is within this exception if he says this in good faith, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses respects Z's character as it appears in Z's conduct as a witness, and no further. (b) But if A says—“I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial because I know him to be a man without veracity”; A is not within this exception, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of Z's character, is an opinion not founded on Z's conduct as a witness. Sixth Exception.—Merits of public performance.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further. Explanation.—A performance may be submitted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public. Illustrations 13 (a) A person who publishes a book, submits that book to the judgment of the public. (b) A person who makes a speech in public, submits that speech to the judgment of the public. (c) An actor or singer who appears on a public stage, submits his acting or singing to the judgment of the public. (d) A says of a book published by Z—“Z's book is foolish; Z must be a weak man. Z's book is indecent; Z must be a man of impure mind”. A is within the exception, if he says this in good faith, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of Z respects Z's character only so far as it appears in Z's book, and no further. (e) But if A says—“I am not surprised that Z's book is foolish and indecent, for he is a weak man and a libertine.” A is not within this exception, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of Z's character is an opinion not founded on Z's book. Seventh Exception.—Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another.—It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates. Illustration A Judge censuring in good faith the conduct of a witness, or of an officer of the Court; a head of a department censuring in good faith those who are under his orders; a parent censuring in good faith a child in the presence of other children; a schoolmaster, whose authority is derived from a parent, censuring in good faith a pupil in the presence of other pupils; a master censuring a servant in good faith for remissness in service; a banker censuring in good faith the cashier of his bank for the conduct of such cashier as such cashier—are within this exception. Eighth Exception.—Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised per-son.—It is not defamation to prefer in 14 good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation. Illustration If A in good faith accuses Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Z's master; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a child, to Z's father—A is within this exception. Ninth Exception.—Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests.—It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good. Illustrations (a) A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business—“Sell nothing to Z unless he pays you ready money, for I have no opinion of his honesty.” A is within the exception, if he has made this imputation on Z in good faith for the protection of his own interests. (b) A, a Magistrate, in making a report to his own superior officer, casts an imputation on the character of Z. Here, if the imputation is made in good faith, and for the public good, A is within the exception. Tenth Exception.—Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good.—It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good. 500. Punishment for defamation.—Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” 15 In the light of the offence being defamation, I deem it appropriate to notice the allegation against this petitioner. It reads as follows: “ºÀÄZÀÑ, ªÀÄÆRð, CeÁÕ¤; K£À£ÀߨÉÃPÀÄ? J£ï.Dgï.gÀªÉÄñï DgÉÆÃ¥ÀzÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÁUÁݽ £ÀqɹzÀ G¥À ¸À¨sÁzsÀåPÀë PÀȵÁÚgÉrØ” The petitioner is said to have uttered what should I call him (the complainant) mad, an idiot or an ignorant man. This is the allegation. 9. The High Court of Delhi in the case of NAVEEN JINDAL v. ZEE MEDIA CORPORATION LIMITED1 has held as follows: “…. …. …. 19. I am also of the considered opinion that the view which has been taken by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sultan Singh in S. Charanjit Singh's case (supra) which is based on the view of the Apex Court in Kartar Singh's case (supra), is a more balanced view on account of the fact that a public person or a person holding a public office should not be so ‘thin skinned’ or should be rather ‘thick skinned’ so as to complain about the allegations or the averments or the write ups which are taking place against him in the media or are being telecast unless and until they are grossly defamatory per se. The publications may be inaccurate, not fully or substantially true or may be distorted or may be offending sensibilities of the person against whom such allegations are made or may be to his annoyance but that is not to be the ground to muzzle them altogether. 1 2014 SCC Online Del 1369 16 20. It is more so in a case when a person, holder of a public office or aspiring to become a member of an elected body is amidst the din of electioneering. It is a common knowledge that while the elections are on, all kinds of accusations and counter-accusations are bound to fly thick and fast in all directions of which a person must not complain unless and until the allegations against him are per se defamatory.” 10. Long before the High Court of Delhi rendered its judgment (Emphasis supplied) quoted supra, this Court in the case of S. BANGARAPPA v. GANESH NARAYAN HEGDE2, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 18. The third point for consideration is whether prima facie case has been made out to charge the accused to the offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.C. or the deserves to be discharged from the said accusation. The Court has to consider the evidence produced and its admissibility, circumstances under which and the context to make such imputation including the intention to make such imputation, whether the said accusation can be believed to have harmed the complainant's reputation and, if the accusation is really made, is not the accused entitled for discharge if the intention and the context are alleviating factors. To decide this, it is proper to refer here to the contents of the Memorandum, Exhibit D.8, the reply notice issued by the petitioner and some of the admissions made by the important witnesses of the complaint. The Memorandum submitted to the petitioner reads thus: 2 ILR 1992 KAR 2091 17 "(cid:1)ಾನ(cid:4) (cid:5)(cid:6)ೕ ಎ(cid:9). ಬಂ(cid:12)ಾರಪ(cid:15)ನವರು, ಅಧ(cid:4)(cid:20)ರು ಕ(cid:22)ಾ(cid:23)ಟಕ (cid:25)ಾ(cid:6)ಂ(cid:26)ರಂಗ, (cid:28)ೆಂಗಳ(cid:31)ರು. (cid:1)ಾನ(cid:4) ೇ, !"ಾ#ಪ$ರ %ಾಲೂ()ನ (cid:25)ೆಲವ$ ಪಟ*ಭದ(cid:6) -%ಾ ಶ)/ಗಳ0 (cid:1)ಾಡುವ ಅವ(cid:4)ವ2ಾರಗ3ಂದ ನಗರದ4( ಅ)5 !ಗ"ೇ ಇರುವ ಪ(cid:6)ಸಂಗದ ಕು8ತು ಈ (cid:1)ಾ-(cid:26)ಯನು< ತಮ> ಅವ(cid:12)ಾಹ(cid:22)ೆ(cid:12)ೆ ಕಳ0-!(cid:25)ೊಡು(cid:26)/"ೆ#ೕ(cid:22)ೆ, !"ಾ#ಪ$ರ ನಗರದ4( 6 ಅ)5 @ರAಗ3ದು# ಅವ$ಗಳ4( ಎರಡು (cid:5)(cid:6)ೕ ಾಮಕೃಷD 2ೆಗEೆ (cid:1)ಾನ(cid:4) ಮುಖ(cid:4) ಮಂ(cid:26)(cid:6)ಗಳ0, ಕ(cid:22)ಾ(cid:23)ಟಕ ಸರ(cid:25)ಾರ ಇವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರG#ದು# ಅದರ4( (cid:5)(cid:6)ೕ ಾಮಕೃಷD 2ೆಗHEೆಯವರ Iಾಲು(cid:12)ಾ8(cid:25)ೆ ಸಹ ಇರುವ$ದು. (cid:5)(cid:6)ೕ 2ೆಗHEೆಯವರು ಅJ(cid:25)ಾರ(cid:25)ೆ5 ಬಂದ ಕೂಡKೇ ಅವರ ಸಮ>ಂJಕರು ಅJ(cid:25)ಾ8ಗ3(cid:12)ೆ ದಪ(cid:23)%ೋ8! ಅವ(cid:4)ವ2ಾರ Iಾ(cid:6)ರಂL!"ಾ# ೆ. ಅವರ Mಲು(ಗಳ0 ಜನವ8Oಂದ ಹಗಲು ಾ(cid:26)(cid:6) ಕುಚುಗಲು ಅ)5 (cid:1)ಾQ ಅವ$ಗಳನು< (cid:25)ೇರಳ 2ಾಗೂ (cid:12)ೋRಾ ಾಜ(cid:4)ಗ3(cid:12)ೆ ಕಳ0-!ರುವ (cid:25)ೆಲಸ Iಾ(cid:6)ರಂL!"ಾ# ೆ. !"ಾ#ಪ$ರದ ಎKಾ( ಬತ/ವ$ ತಮ> @ರA(cid:12)ೆ ಬರ(cid:28)ೇ(cid:25)ೆಂಬ ಉ"ೆ#ೕಶGಂದ ೈತ8(cid:12)ೆ ಆಕಶ(cid:23)ಕ (cid:28)ೆKೆ (2ೆVW(cid:12)ೆ ಹಣ) (cid:25)ೊಟು* ಭತ/ ಪEೆದು. M4(ಂY (cid:1)ಾQ! 2ೊರ ಾಜ(cid:4)ಗ3(cid:12)ೆ ಕಳ0-ಸುವ ಸುG# ಇ4( ಮ(cid:22)ೆ (cid:1)ಾ%ಾ@"ೆ. Zಾ(cid:1)ಾನ(cid:4) ಜನ8(cid:12)ೆ ಅ)5 350 ರೂIಾOಗೂ ಸಹ ಒಂದು )\ಂ]ಾ^ !ಗುವ$Gಲ(. ಈ ವ(cid:4)ವ2ಾರದ4( !"ಾ#ಪ$ರದ ಒಬ_ "ೊಡ‘ ) ಾA Rಾ(cid:4)Iಾ8 2ಾಗೂ !"ಾ#ಪ$ರದ %ಾಹ!ೕ^"ಾರರ aಾb (cid:1)ಾವ ಸಹ (cid:28)ಾ@ೕ"ಾರ8"ಾ# ೆ. ಈ cKೆ(ಯ ಉಸು/Rಾ8 ಮಂ(cid:26)(cid:6)ಯೂ ಆ@ರುವ ಾಜ(cid:4)ದ ಆ2ಾರ ಮಂ(cid:26)(cid:6)ಯವರ ಪ ೋ(cid:20) (cid:28)ೆಂಬಲವ$ ಈ ಜನ8(cid:12)ೆ ಇ"ೆ ಎಂದು (cid:26)3ಯಲ(cid:15)d*"ೆ. %ಾವ$ ಈ bಷಯವನು< b"ಾನ ಸaೆಯ4( ಪ(cid:6)Zಾ/ಪ (cid:1)ಾQ, ಆಗುವ ಅವ(cid:4)ವ2ಾರ (cid:28)ೆಳ)(cid:12)ೆ ತರ(cid:28)ೇಕು 2ಾಗೂ (cid:1)ಾನ(cid:4) ಮುಖ(cid:4) ಮಂ(cid:26)(cid:6)ಗ3(cid:12)ೆ (cid:26)3!, 2ೆಗEೆಯವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದವ8ಂದ ಆಗುವ ಈ ಹಗಲು ದ ೋEೆ e4(ಸುವಂ%ೆ ಅವರ ಗಮನ(cid:25)ೆ5 ತರ(cid:28)ೇ(cid:25)ೆಂದು Iಾ(cid:6)f(cid:23)ಸು%ೆ/ೕRೆ. !"ಾ#ಪ$ರ ನಗರ -ತVಂತಕ ಮಂಡ3ಯ ಪರRಾ@ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 15-4-83 Sd/- T.D. Hulekal Sd/- ರgೕಶ Sd/- QæµÀÚ 18 Sd/- Kismar ನಕಲು: (cid:5)(cid:6)ೕ (cid:12)ೋIಾಲ (cid:25)ಾನEೆ, hಾಸಕರು, !"ಾ#ಪ$ರ (cid:5)(cid:6)ೕ bೕರಪ(cid:15) iO4, b ೋಧ ಪ(cid:20)ದ (cid:22)ಾಯಕರು, (cid:28)ೆಂಗಳ(cid:31)ರು.” In the reply sent on behalf of the petitioner to the notice issued on behalf of the Complainant, it is mentioned as follows: "ಕ(cid:22)ಾ(cid:23)ಟಕ Iಾ(cid:6)ಂತ blಾನ ಸaೆಯ ಸದಸ(cid:4) ಾ@ 4 (cid:22)ೇ (cid:28)ಾ8 ಸತತRಾ@ ಚು(cid:22)ಾOತ ಾ@ ಆ8! ಬಂGರುವ ನಮ> ಕn"ಾರ8(cid:12)ೆ ಾಜ(cid:4)ದ ಾಜ)ೕಯ cೕವನದ4( ಒಂದು b(cid:5)ಷ* Zಾoನ (cid:1)ಾನb"ೆ. ನಮ> ಕn"ಾರರು ಜನ Zಾ(cid:1)ಾನ(cid:4)ರ ಆದರಲೂ( ಕಡು ಬಡವರ -ಂದು3ದವರ 2ಾಗೂ ಅಲ(cid:15)ಸಂqಾ(cid:4)ತರ 2ಾಗೂ -ತರ(cid:20)ಣ (cid:1)ಾಡಲು ಸತತ 2ೋ ಾಟ ನEೆ!"ಾ# ೆ. 2ಾಗೂ ನEೆಸು(cid:26)/"ಾ# ೆ. ಅವರು ಆ(cid:12)ಾ(cid:12)ೆH ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾ (cid:12)ೋrsಗಳನು< ಕ ೆದು ಜನರ ಸಮZೆ(cid:4)ಗಳನು< ಪತ(cid:6) ಕತ(cid:23) ೊಡ(cid:22)ೆ ಚV(cid:23)! ಜನರ ಸಮZೆ(cid:4)ಗ3(cid:12)ೆ ಅಗತ(cid:4)Rಾದ - ಪ(cid:6)uಾರ ಒದ@!(cid:25)ೊಳ0vವ ಪ(cid:6)ಯತ< (cid:1)ಾಡು(cid:26)/"ಾ# ೆ. ಇಂತಹ ಒಂದು ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾ(cid:12)ೋrs 28-4-1983 ರ4( ನEೆದುದು eಜ. ಈ ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾ (cid:12)ೋrsಯ4( ಪ(cid:6)ಮುಖRಾ@ ಪ(cid:6)Zಾ/ವ(cid:22)ೆ (cid:1)ಾQದ bಷಯ “ಅ(cid:22)ೈ(cid:26)ಕ ಾಜ)ೕಯ ಪ}ಾಂತರ”ದ ಬ(cid:12)ೆH. ಇ"ೇ ಸಂದಭ(cid:23)ದ4( ಾಜ(cid:4)ದ ಗQ ಪ(cid:6)"ೇಶಗಳ4( ಅ)5 ಅಕ(cid:6)ಮRಾ@ (cid:12)ೋRಾ ಮತು/ (cid:25)ೇರಳ ಾಜ(cid:4)ಗ3(cid:12)ೆ Zಾ(cid:12)ಾA(cid:25)ೆ(cid:127)ಾಗು(cid:26)/"ೆ ಎಂಬ ಅಂಶ ನಮ> ಕn"ಾರರ ಗಮನ(cid:25)ೆ5 ಬಂGತು/ ಇಂತಹ ಕಷ* Zಾ(cid:12)ಾA(cid:25)ೆಯ ಪ8(cid:128)ಾಮRಾ@ ಜನZಾ(cid:1)ಾನ(cid:4)ರ ಆ2ಾರ ವಸು/ಗಳ (cid:28)ೆKೆ bಪ8ೕತRಾ@ ಏ8ದು# ಜನcೕವನ ದುಸ/ರRಾ@"ೆ ಎಂಬ ಅಂಶ ನಮ> ಕn"ಾರರ ಗಮನ(cid:25)ೆ5 ಬಂGತು/. ಇ"ೇ ಸಂದಭ(cid:23)ದ4( (cid:5)ವiಗH ಮತು/ ಉತ/ರ ಕನ<ಡ cKೆ(ಗಳ4( ಜನ ಒಂದು ಆಂ"ೋಳನವನು< Iಾ(cid:6)ರಂLಸುವ ಬ(cid:12)ೆHಯೂ ಕೂಡ ನಮ> ಕn"ಾರ8(cid:12)ೆ ಸುG# ಸ(cid:1)ಾuಾರಗಳ0 ಬಂGದ#ವ$. ಈ ಬ(cid:12)ೆH ಅ(cid:22)ೇಕ 4(cid:130)ತ ದೂರುಗಳ0 ನಮ> ಕn"ಾರ8(cid:12)ೆ ಬಂGದು# ಅಂತಹ ಒಂದು ದೂ8ನ4( ಕಳvZಾಗA(cid:25)ೆ ವ(cid:4)ವ2ಾರದ4( (cid:5)(cid:6)ೕ ಾಮಕೃಷD 2ೆಗEೆಯವರ ಸ2ೋದರ ಾದ eಮ> ಕn"ಾರರ Iಾತ(cid:6)b"ೆ ಎಂಬ ಒಂದು ದೂರು ಇತು/. ಈ ಎKಾ( ದೂರುಗಳನು< ಮುಖ(cid:4)ಮಂ(cid:26)(cid:6)ಗಳವ8(cid:12)ೆ ರRಾe! ಈ ಬ(cid:12)ೆH eಷ(cid:15)(cid:20)IಾತRಾದ buಾರ(cid:128)ೆಯನು< ನEೆO! Cw (cid:131)@(cid:127)ಾದ ಕ(cid:6)ಮಗಳನು< (cid:25)ೈ(cid:12)ೊಳv(cid:28)ೇ(cid:25)ೆಂದು ನಮ> ಕn"ಾರರು ಮುಖ(cid:4)ಮಂ(cid:26)(cid:6)ಗಳವ8(cid:12)ೆ ಮನb (cid:1)ಾQದ#ರು. -ೕ(cid:12)ೆ ಬ ೆಯುRಾಗ ನಮ> ಕn"ಾರರು ಮುಖ(cid:4)ಮಂ(cid:26)(cid:6)ಗ3(cid:12)ೆ ಈ jÃw CAzÀgÉ "(cid:25)ೆಲ(cid:132)g> ಇಂತಹ ದೂರುಗಳ0 ಾಜ(cid:25)ಾರ(cid:128)ೆಗಳ gೕKೆ ಬರುವ$ದು ಸಹಜ ಆದರಲೂ( ಅJ(cid:25)ಾರದ4(ರುವವರ gೕKೆ 2ೇರಳ, ಆದುದ8ಂದ ಸ%ಾ(cid:4)ಸತ(cid:4)%ೆಯನು< ಕಂಡು-Qಯಲು ಪ(cid:134)ಣ(cid:23) ಪ(cid:6)(cid:1)ಾಣ ºÁUÀÆ ಜgÀÆ ಾದ ತeqೆ CUÀvÀå ಎಂಬು"ಾ@ ಬ ೆGದ#ರು. ಈ ಬ(cid:12)ೆH ಮುಖ(cid:4)ಮಂ(cid:26)(cid:6)ಗಳ0 (cid:127)ಾವ ಒಂದು ಕ(cid:6)ಮವನೂ< %ೆ(cid:12)ೆದು(cid:25)ೊಂQಲ( 2ಾಗೂ ಈ ಮನbಗಳ0 ತಮ(cid:12)ೆ ಬಂGರುವ ಬ(cid:12)ೆH !o8ೕಕರಣ (cid:1)ಾಡGದ#ರ ಬ(cid:12)ೆH ನಮ> ಕn"ಾರ8(cid:12)ೆ 19 ಮುಖ(cid:4)ಮಂ(cid:26)(cid:6)ಗಳ ಬ(cid:12)ೆH ಅಸ(cid:1)ಾlಾನbತು/. Zಾವ(cid:23)ಜeಕರ -ತ(cid:25)ೆ5 ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ* ಈ bಷಯವನು< ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾ(cid:12)ೋrsಯ4( ಪ(cid:6)Zಾ/(cid:135)ಸುವ$"ೇ 2ೊರತು eಮ> ಕn"ಾರರ ಬ(cid:12)ೆH ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ೆಗಳ4( ವರG(cid:127)ಾ@ರುವ 8ೕ(cid:26)ಯ4( (cid:22)ೇರRಾದ ಆ ೋಪವನು< (cid:1)ಾಡ4ಲ( ಎಂಬ ಅಂಶವನು< ನಮ> ಕn"ಾರರು ಸ\ಚ(cid:136)ಪQಸಬಯಸು%ಾ/ ೆ. ಈ ಒಂದು 2ೇ3(cid:25)ೆಯನು< ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ೆಗಳ0 ತಮ>"ೇ ಆದ 8ೕ(cid:26)ಯ4( ಪ(cid:6)ಕd! ಾಜ)ೕಯ (cid:12)ೊಂದಲ(cid:25)ೆ5 ಅವ(cid:25)ಾಶ (cid:1)ಾQದ ೆ ಅದ(cid:25)ೆ5 ನಮ> ಕn"ಾರರು (cid:127)ಾವ 8ೕ(cid:26)ಯಲೂ( ಜRಾ(cid:28)ಾ#ರರಲ(. ನಮ> ಕn"ಾರರು (cid:127)ಾವ ಸುಳvನೂ< ಸೃr* (cid:1)ಾQಲ(. Zಾವ(cid:23)ಜeಕ cೕವನ(cid:25)ೆ5 ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ* ಅವರ ಗಮನ(cid:25)ೆ5 ಬಂದು ಒಂದುಅಂಶವನು< Zಾವ(cid:23)ಜeಕರ ಗಮನ(cid:25)ೆ5 ತರುವ ಮೂ®PÀ ಸಮZೆ(cid:4)ಯನು< ಬ(cid:12)ೆಹ8ಸುವ ಒಂದು Iಾ(cid:6)(cid:1)ಾAಕ ಪ(cid:6)ಯತ<ವನು< (cid:1)ಾQ"ಾ# ೆ(cid:137)ೕ 2ೊರತು eಮ> ಕn"ಾರರ ಮನ (cid:22)ೋOಸುವ ಒಂದು ಉ"ೆ#ೕಶ ಅವರ"ಾ@ರ4ಲ(. ಎಂಬ ಅಂಶವನು< ಮ%ೊ/g> (cid:26)3ಸಬಯಸು%ಾ/ ೆ. XX XX XX ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾ(cid:12)ೋrsಯ4( ಈ ಪ(cid:6)Zಾ/ವ(cid:22)ೆ (cid:1)ಾQದ ಉ"ೆ#ೕಶ ಈ ತತ\ವನು< ಎ(cid:26)/ -Qಯುವ$"ೇ 2ೊರತು, eಮ> ಕn"ಾರ8(cid:12)ೆ 2ಾಗೂ ಅವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದವ8(cid:12)ೆ ಮನ (cid:22)ೋOಸುವ 8ೕ(cid:26)ಯ4( ಆ ೋಪ (cid:1)ಾಡುವ$ದಲ( ಎಂಬ ಅಂಶವನು< ಮ%ೊ/g> !o8ೕಕ8ಸಬಯಸು%ಾ/ ೆ. eಮ> (cid:22)ೋdೕ!ನ4( ಈ ಒಂದು 2ೇ3(cid:25)ೆಯ ಉ"ೆ#ೕಶ ಕನಕಪ$ರದ ಮತ"ಾರ8(cid:12)ೆ ತಪ$(cid:15) ಕಲ(cid:15)(cid:22)ೆ (cid:25)ೊಡುವ ಉ"ೆ#ೕಶGಂದ ಎನು<ವ e ಾlಾರದ ಆಸಂಗ(cid:26) ಆ ೋಪವನು< (cid:1)ಾQG#ೕ8. ನಮ> ಕn"ಾರರು ತಮ> ಪ(cid:20)ದ ಅಭ(cid:4)f(cid:23)ಯ ಪರRಾ@ ಕನಕಪ$ರ blಾನಸaಾ }ೇತ(cid:6)ದ ಅ(cid:22)ೇಕ ಕEೆಗಳ4( aಾಷಣ (cid:1)ಾQರು%ಾ/ ೆ. ಆದ ೆ ಈ bಷಯವನು< (cid:127)ಾವ aಾಷಣದಲೂ( ಪ(cid:6)Zಾ/ಪ (cid:1)ಾQಲ(Rೆಂದು ಸ(cid:15)ಷ*ಪQ!ರು%ಾ/ ೆ. XX XX XX Let me examine now the evidence of complainant's witnesses. In the cross-examination of PW-2 Ramachandra, the Editor of Samyuktha Karnataka of Hubli Edition, it is elicited as follows: (cid:28)ೆಂಗಳ(cid:31)8ನ ಕuೇ8Oಂದ ಹುಬ_3vಯ ಕuೇ8(cid:12)ೆ ವರGಯನು< (cid:127)ಾರು ಮುd*!ದರು ಎನು<ವ$ದು 2ೇಳ4(cid:25)ೆ5 (cid:28)ಾರದು 2ಾಗೂ ಆ ಸುG#ಯನು< ಹುಬ_3vಯ4( (cid:127)ಾರು !\ೕಕ8!"ಾ# ೆ ಅಂ%ಾ 2ೇಳ4(cid:25)ೆ5 (cid:28)ಾರದು. 20 ನಮ> ಕuೇ8ಯ4( ಬಂದಂತಹ ಎKಾ( ಸುG# bಷಯಗಳ(cid:31) ನನ< ಗಮನ(cid:25)ೆ5 ಬರುವ$GKಾ(. ಸುG#ಯನು< bhೆ(ೕಷ(cid:128)ೆ (cid:1)ಾQದವರು ಅದ(cid:25)ೆ5 (cid:5)ೕr(cid:23)(cid:25)ೆಯನು< (cid:25)ೊಡು%ಾ/ ೆ. (cid:5)ೕr(cid:23)(cid:25)ೆಯನು< (cid:25)ೊಡುವ$ದು ಅವರ ಸ\ಂತ ಅLIಾ(cid:6)ಯ ಅಂ%ಾ ಅನು<ವ$ದು ಸ8. XX XX XX ಪ(cid:6)ಕಟ(cid:128)ೆ (cid:1)ಾಡುವ$ದ)5ಂತ ಪ(cid:134)ವ(cid:23)ದ4( ಸುG#ಯ "ೋಷಪ(cid:134)8ತ ಅಂ%ಾ ನಮ(cid:12)ೆ ಕಂಡು ಬಂದ ೆ ಅದನು< (cid:22)ಾವ$ ಧೃQೕಕರಣ (cid:1)ಾQ(cid:25)ೊಳ0v%ೆ/ೕRೆ. (ಸ\ಯಂ 2ೇ3(cid:25)ೆ: ಅದನು< ನಮ> ಸ\ಂತ bRೇಚ(cid:22)ೆOಂ"ಾ ಧೃQೕಕರಣ (cid:1)ಾಡು%ೆ/ೕRೆ. ಆದ ೆ 2ೊರ(cid:12)ೆ 2ೋ@ ಅಲ() ಈ (cid:25)ೇ!ನ4( ಅಡಕRಾದ ಸುG#ಯ ಬ(cid:12)ೆH ದೃ(cid:142)ೕಕರಣ (cid:1)ಾಡKಾ@"ೆ(cid:143)ೕ 2ೇ(cid:12)ೆ ಅನು<ವ$ದು ನನ(cid:12)ೆ (cid:12)ೊ(cid:26)/ಲ(. XX XX XX ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ೆಯು (cid:1)ಾ ಾಟRಾಗುವ ಸಲುRಾ@ ಆಕಷ(cid:23)AಯRಾದ (cid:5)ೕr(cid:23)(cid:25)ೆಗಳನು< ಮತು/ ಉvÉàçÃ(cid:20)ಕಗಳನು< (cid:22)ಾವ$ ಪ(cid:6)!G# (cid:1)ಾಡು%ೆ/ೕRೆ ಅಂ%ಾ ಅನು<ವ$ದು ಸ8ಯಲ( XX XX XX Zಾವ(cid:23)ಜeಕ ಪ(cid:6)ಮುಖRಾದದು# ಮತು/ ಅಡ(cid:26)ತ(cid:25)ೆ5 ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ*ಂ%ೆ ಅLIಾ(cid:6)ಯವನು< (cid:25)ೇ3"ಾಗ ಅದು ನಮ> ದೃr*ಯ4( ಪ(cid:6)ಮುಖRಾದದು# ಮತು/ Zಾವ(cid:23)ಜeಕ ದೃr*Oಂ"ಾ ಇದ#4( ಅದನು< (cid:22)ಾವ$ ಬರಹದ4( (cid:25)ೊಡಬಹುದು. P.W.-5 M.K. Vidyaranya, the P.T.I., Reporter has deposed as under: 1983ರ4( (cid:22)ಾನು (cid:135).d.ಐ. ನ4( ವರG(cid:12)ಾರ(cid:22)ೆಂದು (cid:25)ೆಲಸ (cid:1)ಾಡು(cid:26)/"ೆ#ನು. 1983(cid:22)ೇ ಏ(cid:135)(cid:6)^ (cid:1)ಾ2ೆಯ4( ಅಂದ ೆ ಕನಕಪ$ರ blಾನಸaಾ ಚು(cid:22)ಾವ(cid:128)ೆಯ ಪ(cid:134)ವ(cid:23)ದ4( (cid:22)ೇ ಆ ೋ(cid:135)ತ ಾದ (cid:5)(cid:6)ೕ ಬಂ(cid:12)ಾರಪ(cid:15) ಇವರು ಕ ೆದ ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾ (cid:12)ೋrs(cid:12)ೆ 2ೋ@"ೆ#ನು. ನಮ> ಸಂZೆo(cid:12)ೆ ಅವ8ಂದ ಅ2ಾ\ನ ಬಂGತು. ಆ ಆಮಂತ(cid:6)ಣದ gೕ ೆ(cid:12)ೆ ನಮ> ಕuೇ8Oಂದ ನನ<ನು< ಕ3!(cid:25)ೊd*ದ#ರು. ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾ (cid:12)ೋrsಯನು< ಅವರು ತಮ> ಮ(cid:22)ೆಯ4( ಕ ೆGದ#ರು. ಅವರ ಮ(cid:22)ೆಯು (cid:28)ೆಂಗಳ(cid:31)ರು ಕು(cid:1)ಾರ Iಾ(cid:145)(cid:23) ದ4( ಇರುವ (cid:12)ಾಂJ ಭವನದ ಹ(cid:26)/ರ ಇರುತ/"ೆ. ಸದ8 ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾ(cid:12)ೋrsಯ4( ಅವರು ಮುಖ(cid:4)Rಾ@ ಾಜ(cid:4)ದ4( ಇದ# ದು ಾಡ3ತದ ಬ(cid:12)ೆH 2ಾಗೂ ಸ(cid:15)ಷ*Rಾ@ (cid:5)(cid:6)ೕ ಾಮಕೃಷD 2ೆಗEೆ ಇವರ Zೋದರ ಸಂಬಂJ(cid:127)ಾದ (cid:5)(cid:6)ೕ ಗ(cid:128)ೇಶ 2ೆಗEೆ ಇವರು (cid:12)ೋRಾ(cid:25)ೆ5 ಅ)5 ಕಳv Zಾಗ(cid:128)ೆ (cid:1)ಾಡು(cid:26)/ರುವ$"ಾ@ಯೂ 2ಾಗೂ ಅವರು ಾಮಕೃಷD 2ೆಗEೆ ಇವರ Zೋದರ ಸಂಬಂJ(cid:127)ಾದ#8ಂದ (cid:146)ೕ4ೕ(cid:9) ಅJ(cid:25)ಾ8ಗಳ0 ಅವರ bರುದ(cid:147) ಕ(cid:6)ಮ %ೆ(cid:12)ೆದು(cid:25)ೊಳvಲು 21 -ಂಜ8ಯು(cid:26)/ದು# ಅದ8ಂದ ನಮ> ಾಜ(cid:4)(cid:25)ೆ5 (cid:25)ೋ]ಾ(cid:4)ಂತರ ರೂIಾOಗಳ 2ಾe(cid:127)ಾ@"ೆ ಎಂದು ಆIಾG!ದ#ರು. ಸದ8 (cid:12)ೋrsಯ4( ಸು(cid:1)ಾರು 25 ಜನ (cid:28)ೇ ೆ (cid:28)ೇ ೆ ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ೆಗಳ ಪ(cid:6)(cid:26)eJಗಳ(cid:31) aಾಗವ-!ದ#ರು. (cid:28)ೆಂಗಳ(cid:31)ರು ಸಂಯುಕ/ ಕ(cid:22)ಾ(cid:23)ಟಕGಂದ ಪ(cid:6)2ಾ(ದ ಕುಳ4, (cid:5)(cid:6)ೕ ಹ8ಶWಂದ(cid:6) ಭ(cid:149), ಕುಸು(cid:1)ಾಕರ (]ೈಂ(cid:9) ಆ(cid:150) ಇಂQ(cid:127)ಾ), ಇನೂ< ಅ(cid:22)ೇಕರ aಾಗವ-!ದ#ರು ಅವರು 2ೇ3ದ ಸುG#ಯನು< (cid:22)ಾವ$ ನಮ> ಪ$ಸ/ಕದ4( ಬರವA(cid:12)ೆಯ ರೂಪದ4( %ೆ(cid:12)ೆದು(cid:25)ೊಂEೆನು. ಅಂದ ೆ ಅವರು 2ೇ3ದ ಸುG#ಗಳ4( ಮುಖ(cid:4)Rಾದ ಅಂಶಗಳನು< ಅ(cid:20)ರಶಹ ಬ ೆದು(cid:25)ೊಂQ"ೆ#ೕ(cid:22)ೆ. ಾಮಕೃಷD 2ೆಗEೆ ಇವರ Zೋದರ ಸಂಬಂJ ಇ%ಾ(cid:4)G - ಇ%ಾ(cid:4)G ಇವ$ಗಳನು< ಅ(cid:20)ರಶಹ ಬ ೆದು(cid:25)ೊಂQರು%ೆ/ೕ(cid:22)ೆ. ಗ(cid:128)ೇಶ 2ೆಗEೆ ಇವರು ಅ)5 ಕಳvZಾ(cid:12)ಾ(cid:128)ೆಯ4( aಾಗವ-!"ಾ# ೆಂದು (cid:22)ಾನು ಅ(cid:20)ರಶಹ ಬ ೆದು(cid:25)ೊಂQ"ೆ#ೕ(cid:22)ೆ. (cid:22)ಾನು ಅ"ೇ 8ೕ(cid:26) - ಯ4( ನಮ> PÀbÉÃjUÉ ವರG (cid:1)ಾQ"ೆ#ೕ(cid:22)ೆ. XX XX XX 1983ರ4( ಸು(cid:1)ಾರು (cid:22)ಾಲು5 ಜನ (cid:135).d.ಐ. ವರG(cid:12)ಾರರು ಇ"ೆ#ವ$. ಇದುವ ೆbಗೂ (cid:22)ಾವ$ (cid:25)ೊಟ* ವರGಯ4(, (cid:28)ೇ ೊಂದು ಚಂದ"ಾರರು ಪ(cid:6)ಕd!"ಾಗ (cid:127)ಾವ$"ೇ ಒಂದು bಪ(cid:127)ಾ(cid:23)ಸ ಕಂಡು ಬಂGಲ( 2ಾಗೂ ಮೂಲ ಸುG# (cid:25)ೊಟ*ವರು ಈವ ೆಗೂ ಅಲ(ಗ(cid:151)ೆದಂತಹ ಪ(cid:6)ಸಂಗ ಬಂGರುವ$Gಲ(. (cid:28)ೆಂಗಳ(cid:31)ರು 2ಾಗೂ ಹುಬ_3v ಸಂಯುಕ/ ಕ(cid:22)ಾ(cid:23)ಟಕದ ಪ(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾಶಕರು ಇಬ_ರೂ ನಮ> ಚಂದ"ಾರ8ರು%ಾ/ ೆ. (cid:5)(cid:6)ೕ ಬಂ(cid:12)ಾರಪ(cid:15)ನವರು (cid:25)ೊಟ* ವರGಯ(cid:22)ೆ<ೕ (cid:22)ಾನು ಬ ೆದು(cid:25)ೊಂಡು ನಮ> ಕuೇ8ಯ4( (cid:25)ೊd*ರು%ೆ/ೕ(cid:22)ೆ. XX XX XX ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ೆ (cid:12)ೋrsಯ4( 2ೇ3(cid:25)ೆ eೕಡುವವರ 2ೇ3(cid:25)ೆಯನು< ನಮ> ಗ(cid:6)-(cid:25)ೆ ಪ(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾರ ಬ ೆದು(cid:25)ೊಳ0v%ೆ/ೕRೆ. XX XX XX ನನ(cid:12)ೆ ಕನ<ಡ 2ಾಗೂ ಆಂಗ( aಾ(cid:152)ೆಯ4( (cid:5)ೕಘ(cid:6)4(cid:135) ಬರುವ$Gಲ(. ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾ(cid:12)ೋrsಯ4( 2ೇ3ದ bಷಯವನು< (cid:22)ಾವ$ ಎ(cid:154)ಾ 8ೕ(cid:26) ಬ ೆದು(cid:25)ೊಂQರು%ೆ/ೕRೆ. ಈ iಕದ#g(cid:12)ೆ ಸಂಬಂJ!ದ bಷಯದ ಬ(cid:12)ೆH ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾ (cid:12)ೋrsಯ bವರವನು< (cid:22)ಾನು ಇd*ರುವ$Gಲ(. XX XX XX 22 1(cid:22)ೇ ಆ ೋ(cid:135)ತ ಾದ ಬಂ(cid:12)ಾರಪ(cid:15) ಇವರು Zಾವ(cid:23)ಜeಕ ಪ(cid:6)(cid:26)eGಗಳ0 ಇರು%ಾ/ ೆ. ಅವರು Zಾವ(cid:23)ಜeಕ -%ಾದೃr*Oಂದ 2ಾಗೂ ಾಜ(cid:4)ದ4( ಇರುವ ಆಡ3ತ ನೂ(cid:4)ನ%ೆಗಳ ಬ(cid:12)ೆH ಪ(cid:6)(cid:26)(cid:25)ಾ(cid:12)ೋrsಯನು< ಕ ೆಯು%ಾ/ ೆ. ಈ ದೃr*Oಂದ (cid:22)ಾನು ಅವರ ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾ(cid:12)ೋrs(cid:12)ೆ 2ೋ@"ೆ#. ಅಂGನ ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾ(cid:12)ೋrsಯ4( Zಾವ(cid:23)ಜeಕ -%ಾದೃr*Oಂದ 2ೇ3ದ#ರು. ಪ(cid:6)(cid:26)(cid:143)ಬ_ ವ(cid:4))/ಯೂ ತಮ> ಗ(cid:6)-(cid:25)ೆಯ ಅನುZಾರRಾ@ bಷಯಗಳನು< ಬ ೆದು(cid:25)ೊಳ0v%ಾ/ ೆ. ಅ(cid:26)ೕ ಮುಖ(cid:4)Rಾದದು# ಇದ#4( aಾಗವ-!ದ ಎಲ( ಪ(cid:6)(cid:26)eJಗಳ0 ಒಂ"ೇ 8ೕ(cid:26)ಯ4( ಬ ೆದು(cid:25)ೊಳ0v%ಾ/ ೆ. XX XX XX ಪ(cid:6)(cid:26)(cid:143)ಂದು ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ೆಗಳ4( (cid:22)ಾವ$ (cid:25)ೊಟ* ವರGಯೂ ಅ(cid:20)ರಶಹ ವರG(cid:127)ಾ@ರುವ$Gಲ(. ಆದ ೆ Zಾ ಾಂಶ ಒಂ"ೇ ಇರುತ/"ೆ ಅಂ%ಾ Zಾnಯೂ 2ೇಳ0%ಾ/ ೆ. ಈ iಕದ#g(cid:12)ೆ ಸಂಬಂJ!ದಂ%ೆ ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾ(cid:12)ೋrs(cid:12)ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ* (cid:127)ಾವ "ಾಖKೆಗಳ0 ನನ< ಹ(cid:26)/ರ ಇಲ(. (cid:25)ೆಲ(cid:132)ಂದು ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ೆಗಳ0 ತಮ>"ೇ ಆದಂತಹ ಾಜ)ೕಯ lೋರ(cid:128)ೆ 2ೊಂGರುತ/Rೆ. XX XX XX (cid:25)ೆಲ(cid:132)g> (cid:25)ೆಲವ$ ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ೆಗಳ4( ಬರುವ bಷಯ ಸ8(cid:127)ಾ@ ಇರುವ$Gಲ(. (cid:25)ೆಲ(cid:132)g> ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ೆಗಳ4( ಬರುವ bಷಯಗಳ0 ಅಧ(cid:23) ಸತ(cid:4)Rಾ@ರುತ/"ೆ. ಅಂತಹ bಷಯಗಳ0 ಪ(cid:134)ಣ(cid:23) ಸುಳ0v ಅಂ%ಾ 2ೇಳಲು ಆಗುವ$Gಲ( 2ಾ(cid:12)ೆ(cid:137)ೕ ಪ(cid:134)ಣ(cid:23) ಸತ(cid:4)bರುತ/"ೆ ಅಂ%ಾಲೂ 2ೇಳಲು ಆಗುವ$GKಾ(. XX XX XX P.W. 6 PrahladKolali, the Chief Reporter of the daily in question has deposed to the effect that: 29.4.83ರಂದು ಪ(cid:6)ಕಟRಾದ bಷಯದ ವರG ನನ<"ಾ@ರುವ$Gಲ(. ಪ$ನಃ ºÉüÀÄvÉÛãÉ. 28.4.83 ರಂದು (cid:22)ಾನು ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾ(cid:12)ೋrs(cid:12)ೆ 2ೋ@"ೆ#ನು. (cid:22)ಾನು ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾ(cid:12)ೋrs(cid:12)ೆ 2ೋ"ಾಗ bಷಯವನು< (cid:5)(cid:6)ೕ ಬಂ(cid:12)ಾರಪ(cid:15)ನವರು 2ೇ3 ಮು@!ದ#ರು. (cid:22)ಾನು ಮರ3 ಕuೇ8(cid:12)ೆ ಬಂದು ಇತರ ವರG(cid:12)ಾರರು eೕQದ 23 ವರGಯ gೕ ೆ(cid:12)ೆ (cid:22)ಾನು ವರGಯನು< ತ(cid:127)ಾರು (cid:1)ಾQರು%ೆ/ೕ(cid:22)ೆ. (cid:135).d.ಐ. ನವರು (cid:25)ೊಟ* ವರG ಪ(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾಟ (cid:22)ಾನು (cid:25)ೊಟ* ವರGಯಂ%ೆ ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ೆಯ4( ಪ(cid:6)ಕಟ(cid:128)ೆ ಆ@ರುತ/"ೆ. Zಾ(cid:1)ಾನ(cid:4)Rಾ@ ಅಂದ ೆ ಕ(cid:22)ಾ(cid:23)ಟಕ ಾಜ(cid:4)ದ4( ಆಡ3ತ Rೈಖ8ಯ (cid:131)ನ<%ೆ 2ಾಗೂ Zಾವ(cid:23)ಜeಕ -ತದೃrsOಂದ bಷಯಗಳ0 ಅಂದ ೆ ದೂರುಗಳ0 ಇವ$ಗಳ ಬ(cid:12)ೆH ಬಂ(cid:12)ಾರಪ(cid:15)ನವರು ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾ(cid:12)ೋrs ಕ ೆಯು(cid:26)/ದ#ರು. ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾ(cid:12)ೋrsಗಳನು< Zಾವ(cid:23)ಜeಕ -ತದೃr*Oಂದ ಕ ೆಯುವ$ದು ಪದ(cid:147)(cid:26). (cid:25)ೆಲ(cid:132)g> ವರG(cid:12)ಾರರು ತಮ>"ೇ ಆದ aಾ(cid:152)ೆಗಳ4( (cid:26)3ದು(cid:25)ೊಳ0vವ$ದು ಉಂಟು ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾ(cid:12)ೋrsಯ4( Zಾ ಾಂಶವನು< ಬ ೆದು(cid:25)ೊಳvKಾಗುತ/"ೆ. Zಾ ಾಂಶ(cid:25)ೆ5 ಅವರವರ aಾ(cid:152)ೆಯನು< ಅಳವQ!(cid:25)ೊಳ0v%ಾ/ ೆ. (cid:22)ಾನು (cid:22)ೋQದ ಪ(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾರ 28.4.83 ರಂದು ಬಂ(cid:12)ಾರಪ(cid:15)ನವರು ಕ ೆದ ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾ(cid:12)ೋrs ಆಡ3%ಾತ>ಕ bಷಯ(cid:25)ೆ5 ಸಂಬಂJ!ದು# ಇರುತ/"ೆ. (cid:28)ೆಂಗಳ(cid:31)8eಂದ (cid:22)ಾವ$ ವರGಗಳನು< J(cid:154)ಾವ%ಾ/@ ಹುಬ3v(cid:12)ೆ ರRಾeಸು%ೆ/ೕRೆ. ಸo(cid:151)ಾವ(cid:25)ಾಶವನು< (cid:22)ೋQ(cid:25)ೊಂಡು ಹುಬ_3vಯ4(ಯೂ ಸಹ ತಮ>"ೆ ಆದ 8ೕ(cid:26)ಯ4( ಸಂnಪ/Rಾ@ ಅಳವQಸುವ$ದು ಉಂಟು. ನನ< (cid:156)ಾಪಕ ಶ)/ಯ ಪ(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾರ ''ಕಳv Zಾ(cid:12)ಾA(cid:25)ೆ'' ಅನು<ವ ಪದ ಇದ#ಂ%ೆ %ೋರು(cid:26)/ತು/ ಅನು<ವ$ದು (cid:22)ೆನಪ$ ಇಲ(. (cid:25)ೆಲವ$ (cid:28)ಾ8 ವರGಗಳನು< ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ೆಯವರು ತಮ> lೋರ(cid:128)ೆ(cid:12)ೆ ಅನುZಾರRಾ@ ಅಳವQಸುವ$ದು ಉಂಟು. ಒg> ವರG ಕ3!ದ4( ಅದರ ಎQdಂY (cid:1)ಾಡುವ$ದು ಸ2ಾ ಇರುತ/"ೆ. (cid:5)(cid:6)ೕ ಬಂ(cid:12)ಾರಪ(cid:15) ಇವರು ತಮ(cid:12)ೆ (cid:28)ೇ ೆಯವ8ಂದ (cid:26)3ದ bಷಯವನು< ಪ(cid:26)(cid:6)(cid:25)ಾ(cid:12)ೋrsಯ4( 2ೇ3ರುವ$ದು (cid:28)ೇ ೆಯವರ ಮೂಲಕ (cid:26)3ದು ಬಂGತು. ಅಂದ ೆ (cid:28)ೇ ೆ ವರG(cid:12)ಾರರ ವರGOಂದ (cid:26)3ದು ಬಂGತು. ಈ ವರGಯ ಪದ (cid:22)ಾg ಅಥRಾ (cid:5)ೕr(cid:23)(cid:25)ೆ (cid:22)ಾನು eೕQದು# ಇರುವ$Gಲ(.” From the above evidence, it is clear that on the date of Press Conference, the accused was a leader of ‘Kranthi Ranga’ a Political Party of the State. He received a copy of the Memorandum wherein certain lapses on the part of the then Ruling Party in the State including Rice smuggling was high- lighted. In his reply notice accused petitioner stated that the so- called meeting that was convened was only in the public interest and to Ventilate the grievances of the public including communicating the feelings of the public to the Government about its lapses and mal-administration. The rice deal was just an incidental one. It is further stated that at no time he had any intention either to defame the complainant or the members of his family or to wound their feelings. It is also mentioned in the 24 reply notice that at the relevant time, Election to Kanakapura Assembly was going on from where Shri Ramakrishna Hegde had contested and the petitioner was touring the entire constituency in favour of one of his Party's candidate. He addressed voters of the constituency at different places. But he never said anything aboutjthe Rice deal. It has come in the evidence of P.W. 5 that the petitioner was in the public field. In the public interest and to expose the lapses on the administration, the Press Conference was convened. It is also in the evidence of P.W. 6 that each reporter will take down in his way. They will use their own style of language while giving captions to the news item and narrating the contents. The Conference dated 28-4-1983 was in respect of State's Administration. He admitted that he cannot remember whether the word ‘smuggling’ was mentioned in the report. …. …. …. 20. While considering the evidence to ascertain whether prima facie case has been made out or not, it is also the duty of the Court to see the statement as a whole and also the contents of the documents are read fully and not by way of dissecting it or in isolation. Because, if the entire document and the statements are read as a whole, the same will give the real picture or the intention. In this connection, it is proper to bear in mind the news appeared in Ex. P. 1 at Ex. P. 1(a), the portion extracted above from the reply notice of the petitioner preceded by the Memorandum at Ex. D-8 dated 15-4-1983 received by the petitioner with copies marked to other Legislators, the then Leader of Opposition including the Government and also to some portions of the statement of the complainant and the statement of his witnesses as extracted above. 21. In order to know whether the complaint made by the 1st respondent is true and the petitioner and Respondents 2 and 3 are liable to be punished under Section 500 I.P.C. or not, it is proper to bear in mind the circumstances under which the imputations are made. It can be said that an offence under Section 499 I.P.C. has been committed when any one of the acts specified in Explanations 1 to 4 to Section 499 I.P.C. is not existing. For the purpose of the case on hand, Explanation 4 is relevant and the same has been extracted above. To attract 25 Section 499 I.P.C. the imputations shall be made intentionally and there shall be reason to believe that the same would harm the reputation of the person against whom it is made. When can a person be charged for an offence punishable under Section 500 in Prem Pal Singh v. Mohan Lal [Prempal Singh v. Mohanlal.] . The relevant portion reads thus: I.P.C. has been clearly explained “the essential ingredients for an offence falling under Section 500 I.P.C. are (i) the making or publishing of an imputation concerning any person; (ii) such imputation must have been made (a) by words either spoken or intended to be read; or (b) by signs: (c) or by visible representations and (iii) such imputations must have been made with the intention of harming or knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerning whom it is made. Imputation means accusation against a person and it implies an allegation of fact and not merely a term of abuse.” 22. The material produced viz., Ex. P. 1(a), the reply given to the notice, the Memorandum Ex. D-8 and the evidence of the complainant and the witnesses, relevant portions of which if compared to the above have been extracted above, ingredients for an offence under Section 499, falsify the theory put forth of the complainant for the following reasons: Firstly, the Courts below placed reliance on the material, namely, the news item, without noticing the same as hearsay and inadmissible in evidence, as held by the Supreme Court and other High Courts. Some of the Decisions are: (a) Laxmi Raj Shetty v. State of Tamil Nadu [AIR 1988 SC 1274.] , wherein the Supreme Court held as follows: “Judicial notice cannot be taken of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proof of the facts reported therein. A statement of fact 26 contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported.” (b)In KhilumalTopandas v. ArjundasTulsidas [KhilumalThopanda s v. ArjundasTulsidas.], the Rajasthan High Court held as under: “A report of a speech made in the newspaper is not admissible in evidence to prove the speeches. The party must produce the person who had made the speeches or the persons in whose presence such speeches were made or the reporter of the newspaper in whose presence the speeches were made and who had sent the report to be published in the paper.” (c) The Allahabad High Court in Shib Singh v. Sridhar [Shib Singh v. Sridhar.] dealing with a report of the Commissioner which is inadmissible in evidence, held as follows: “Since the report of the Commissioner played a very important role in enabling the Magistrate in arriving at his finding and since this report was inadmissible in evidence, the learned Magistrate's finding cannot stand. In the circumstances the reference is accepted. The learned Magistrate's order is set aside. The case shall be sent back to the learned Magistrate. The commissioner shall be summoned and shall be examined and cross-examined in Court. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate shall record his finding on the disputed point and dispose of the case’”
Decision
O R D E R (i) Criminal petition is allowed. (ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.3478 of 2024 arising out of P.C.R.No.17136 of 2022 pending before the 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Special Court 40 for trial of cases against sitting as well as former MPs/MLAs triable by Magistrate in the State of Karnataka), Bangalore stand quashed. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA Bkp/CT:MJ