LexG. NARASIMHAN & ORS. ETC. versus T. V. CHOKKAPPA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
40 G. NARASIMHAN & ORS. ETC. v. T. V. CHOKKAPPA (will connected appeals) September 4, 1972 [J. M. S11ELAT, D. G. PALEKAR AND s. N. Dw1vED1, JJ.] B Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), s. 499 Expln. 2 and Code of Criminal' Procedure (Act 5 of 1898) s. 198-Defamarion of collection.of persons-When 111en1ber of the body ca1i co1nplain as_ aggirieved rerson. The Dtavida Kazhagam sponsored and organ·ised a conferonce. But the conferenc~ was a separate body with its own ·organisation and oftice where corrcspondenco rolating to it was received and d.ealt with> and It had its own '°cretarics. The c:onference passed a number of resol.utitlos. The draft of one ol the resolutions was put in shape by the respondent w})o was a member of .the Dravida Kazhagam. It was howe,·er m.oved hy the president of the conference and passed by the conference. 'The appellants were either editors or publishers of newspapers in which a news item was pubJ:shcd about the conference. The news· item however did not n1cntion either the Dravida Kazhc.:.gam or the respondent or any sponsor or the resolution either by name or otherwise. The respondent wrote letter to the appellants, signing and describing himself as Chair- man of the Reception Committee of the conference, com?laining that the news item had distorted the resolution and asked them to publish a correction and clarification. A few days later, a lawyer's 1,otice was sent to the appellants in which the respondent complained that the news item was defamatory and had tarnished the image of the conference and demanded an apology. Thereafter, the respondent filed a complaint under Ss. 500 and 501. l.P.C. against the appellants as they u1d not tender any apology. On the basis of the complain't and the evidence he recorded, the Magistrate issued proce5'. T"le appellants moved the High Court under s. 561A, Cr. P.C., for quashing the proceedings. They contended th11t the respondent was not ;m aggrieved party within the meaning of s. 198, Cr.P.C., that he had filed the complaint in his capacity as Chait<-. man qf the Reception Committee of the conference and not in his-indi- vidual capacity, that in the absence of any ~eference to him in the news item he had no cause for a complaint, and that the conference, being an undefined and an amorphous body, the respondent, as .a member or part of such body, could not lodge the complaint. The High Court, b.owever, held that the respondent was a member of the Dravida Kazhagam ·which. was an identifiable group, and was therefore a person aggrieved witbtil the meaning of s. 198, Cr.P.C. c D E F Allowing !he appeal to this Court and quashing the proceedings taken G by the Magistrate, HELD: (!) Under s. 198, Cr.P.C .. no Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence falling inter a/ia under Chap. XXI, I.P.C., that is, os. 499 to 502, except 0n a complaint made by some persons aggrieved by such offence. The section is mi.ndatory, so that, if a Magistrate were to take cognizance of the offence of defamation on a complaint filed by one who is not,_ an agg~ieved person the trial and conviction of the accused would H be void aod 11legal. [48 A-CJ (2) Section 499, I.P.C., defines defamation and lays down that wbo- evr.r by words, either spoken or intended to be read or by signs etc., makes A B c D J E F G • H Uc NARASIMHAN v. T. Ve CHOKKAPPA (Shelat, J.) 41 or publishes ooy imputation concerning any person intending to harm oc knowing or having reason to believe that the imputation will harm the reputation of such person is said to defame Iha. person. Explanation 2 to the section lays down that it may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a comp:iny or an association or collection of persons. But such a collection of persons must be an identifiable body, so that, it is possible to s,ay with definiteness that a group of particular persons as distinguished from the rest of the community, was defamed. Therefore, in a case where ~lanation 2. is resorted to the idenmv ·of the com- pany or the association or the collection of persons must be established so as to be relatablc to the defamatory words or imputations. 1 f a well defined class is defamctt, every particular member of that class can fil~ a complaint even if the defamatory imputation does not mention him by name. l48C-G, SOC; G-H] ( 3 )- The test whether the members of a claS> defamed are numerous or not would no
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.