MOHAMMED ABDULLA KHAN versus PRAKASH K.

Citation: [2017] 12 S.C.R. 9 · Decided: 04-12-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR, S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017) 12 S.C.R. 9 
MOHAMMED ABDULLA KHAN 
A 
v. 
PRAKASH K. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2059 of2017) 
DECEMBER 04, 2017 
B 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND S. ABLUL NAZEER, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - Petition for 
quashing of defamation proceedings - Respondent is the owner of 
the newspaper which allegedly published defamatory material 
against the appellant - Proceeding initiated against him under 
s.500-502 /PC - High Court quashed the proceedings - On appeal, 
held: The owner, the printer, or the person selling or offering to sell 
defamatory material is liable for the offences under ss.501 or 502 
JPC, (as the case may be) if the other elements indicated in those 
sections are satisfied - Whether there is sufficient evidence to 
establish the guilt of the respondent for any one of these offences is 
c1 matter that can be examined only cifter recording evidence at the 
time of trial - That can never be a subject matter of a proceeding 
under s.482 - High Court simply concluded that prosecution of 
respondent would lead to miscarriage of justice without discussing 
and without disclosing any principle which forms the basis of the 
conclusion - The extent of the applicability of the principle of 
vicC1rious liability in crimincil law pe1rticulC1rly in the context of the 
offences relating to defamation are neither discussed by the High 
Court in the judgment under appeal nor argued before Supreme 
Court because the respondent neither appeared in person nor 
through any advocate -
The 
question requires a serious 
examination since the owner of a newspaper employs people to 
print, publish and sell the newspaper to make a financial gain out 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
of the said activity - Each of these activities is carried oi1 by persons 
employed by the owner - Where defamatory matter is printed (in a 
newspaper or a book etc.) C1nd sold or offered for sale, whether the 
owner thereof can be heard to say that he cannot be made vicariously 
liable for the defamatory material carried by his newspaper etc. 
requires a critical examination - Neither prosecutions nor the power 
under s.482 can be either conducted or exercised casually m was 
done in the case on hand - Impugned judgment set aside - Trial 
H 
9 
10 
A 
B 
c 
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
court to proceed _with the case in qc~ordance with law - Penal Code, 
1860 - ss.499, ~00, 501, 502. .· . " . 
Allowing _the apP,e~, the ~ou~t .· .· 
. , 
' 
. 
-· . -, .. ·.·. 
., 
' 
HELD: 1.1 The essence of publication in the context of 
Section 499 is communication of defamatory imputation to persons 
other than the persons ag~i'nsi whoin the imputation is made. 
Committing any act' which· constitutes- defamation under. Section 
499 IPC is punishable offence under Section 500 IPC. If the 
content of any news item carrie<l in a newspaper is defamatory as 
defined under Sectio~ 499. IP<;:, ih~ mere prlntingof su~h inaterial 
"knowing or having 'good rea~oit ~~ believ~ that such matter is 
defamatory" itself. constitutes .a distinct offence under Secti01.1 
501 IPC .. The sale or offering for. sale ot's~c]t printed ''substapce 
containing defamatory m~tter" "knowing that it contains such 
matter" is a distlrict offence under Section 502 IPC. In the context 
of the facts of the present case, first· of all; it must be· established 
D that the matter printed-and offered for sale is defamatory within 
the meaning of the. e~pre~sio~. under .Section 49.9. IPC •. lf so 
proved, the next 'step. woµld i)e.fo e~amine the question whether 
the accused committed the ac.ts which constitute the offence of 
which he is charged· witlt the
1~ectutSite 'lnterttion ot-knowledgc' 
E 
etc. to make his acts culpable. [Paras 11-13 ainl 15] [15-A:-F] 
· 
Khima Ncmd v. Emperor (1937) 38 Cri ·LJ ·806 (All); 
Amar Singh F. KS Badalia (1965) 2 Cri LJ 693 (Pat) 
-
ref~rred- to. 
;_!·.;·. 
. ·:.:·-~· • · 
1.2 Whether the ~ontent of the appellant's complaint 
F 
constitutes an 1>ffonce punishable under any one or all or some of 
these .sections was.not examined by the High Court for quashing 
the complaint against the respondent. Whether there is sufficient 
evidence to establish the guilt of the respondent for any one of 
the three offences is a matter that can be examined only after 
0 
recording evidence at the time of trial. That can never be a subject 
matter of a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. From the 
judgment under appeal, it appears that before the High Court it 
was argued on b

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.