Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Satyabhash Yeshwant Salgaonkar, was the original complainant who filed a complaint alleging offences punishable under Sections 500 (defamation) and 501 (printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 IPC against respondents 1 to 12. The learned Magistrate, after examining the complainant on oath under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), issued process against the accused. Aggrieved, the accused approached the Sessions Court at Mumbai by filing a revision application. The learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision and set aside the Magistrate's order issuing process. The complainant then filed the present criminal revision application before the High Court challenging the Sessions Court's order. The High Court heard the counsel for both sides and examined the complaint and the orders. The court noted that the complaint did not contain any averment that the alleged defamatory material was published or communicated to any third party. The court held that publication to a third party is an essential ingredient of the offence of defamation under Section 500 IPC and also for the offence under Section 501 IPC. Since the complaint lacked this essential ingredient, no case was made out against the accused. The Sessions Court was therefore justified in setting aside the process. The High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the Sessions Court's order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Defamation - Sections 500, 501, 34 IPC - Publication - Essential Ingredient - The complainant alleged defamation but failed to aver that the alleged defamatory material was published or communicated to any third party. The Court held that publication to a third party is a sine qua non for the offence of defamation under Section 500 IPC and for the offence under Section 501 IPC. Since the complaint lacked this essential ingredient, the Sessions Court correctly set aside the process issued by the Magistrate. (Paras 1-9) B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Interference with Order of Magistrate Issuing Process - The Sessions Court, in revisional jurisdiction, can interfere with an order of issuance of process if the complaint does not disclose any offence. The High Court affirmed that the Sessions Court did not err in setting aside the process as the complaint was bereft of the necessary averments regarding publication. (Paras 3-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sessions Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused for offences under Sections 500 and 501 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, on the ground that the complaint did not disclose the essential ingredient of publication.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the Sessions Court's order setting aside the process issued by the Magistrate.
Law Points
- Defamation
- Publication
- Essential ingredients of Section 500 IPC
- Section 501 IPC
- Revisional jurisdiction
- Scope of interference with process
