LexJOHN THOMAS versus DR. K. JAGADEESAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A JOHN THOMAS Jo-. v. -+ DR. K. JAGADEESAN JULY 12, 2001 B [K.T. THOMAS AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: :.._ S.199-Defamation-Locus Standi to file complaint-"Some persons c aggrieved"-Scope of-Imputations published in a newspaper against a hospital that it was engaged in trading human kidneys-Complaint by Director of the hospital-Held, maintainable, as he would fall within the purview of "some persons aggrieved"-Even if imputation was not made against a person directly, but if he has reason to feel hurt by the same, he D has locus standi to file. a complaint. Section 258-Power of Court to stop proceedings-Applicability of- Held, has no application to cases instituted upon complaints. i Penal Code, 1860-Section 500-Defamation-Jmputations not per se E defamat01y-Effect of-Held, that by itself does not discharge the publisher since the complainant can establish on evidence that the said imputations were defamat01y. Words and Phrases: F "Some persons aggrieved" meaning of in the context of Section 199 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. A news item was published in a daily newspaper against a renowned hospital alleging that it was illegally selling human kidneys. Respondent- G Director of the said hospital filed a complaint for defamation under Section 500 I.P.C. Appellant-publisher of the said newspaper took a defence that the allegations were against the hospital and not against the Director personally and therefore, there was no locus standi for the respondent to file the complaint x__ - Trial Court upholding the said contention discharged the appellant. However, H on appeal High Court reversed the order of trial court and restored the 934 -----<- JOHN THOMAS v. DR. K. JAGADEESAN 935 criminal proceeding holding that the respondent-Director had locus standi to A ~ file the complaint and that the trial court in summons cases instituted on ;,. complaints cannot discharge the accused after passing over the stage of evidence. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court B HELD : 1.1. The complainant, being Director of the hospital which is a private limited company, would fall within the purview of "some persons aggrieved': as envisaged in Section 199 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ,A 1973. [941-AJ 1.2. The collocation of the words "by some persons aggrieved in Section c 199(1) of the Code definitely indicates that th~omplainant need not necessarily be the defamed person himself. If a comp ny or firm is described · in a publication as engaging itself in nefarious activities its impact would certainly fall on every Director of the company or every working partner of the firm as the case may be and hence they can legitimately feel the pinch D of it. (940-G!°il] 2. After reading th£: imputations in the instant case there is no doubt that they are prima facie libellous. The only effect of an imputation being per se defamatory is that it would relieve the complainant of the burden to establish that the publication of such imputations has lowered him in the estimation of E the right thinking members of the public. However, even if the imputation is not per se defamatory, that by itself would not go to the advantage of the publisher, for the complaining person can establish on evidence that the publication has in fact amounted to defamation even in spite of the apparent deficiency. Appellant cannot contend that he is entitled to discharge on the F ground that the imputations in the extracted publications were not per se defamatory. (939-H; 940-A-B] 3. Section 25B of the Code has no application to cases instituted upon complaints. Summons cases are generally of two categories. Those instituted upon complaints and those instituted otherwise than upon complaints. Section G 258 of the Code is intended to cover those cases belonging to one category alone i.e. "summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaints". The section permits the court to acquit the accused prematurely only in those ~ summons cases instituted otherwise than on complaints wherein the evidence of material witJJesses was recorded. Since the instant case was instituted on complaint, the endeavour made by the accused to find help from section 258 H 936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] 3 S.C.R. A of the Code is of no avail. (939-D-F) 4. In the instant case, appellant has neither pleaded before the trial court nor before the High Court that t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.