Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1941 Crl.MC.No.84 of 2017 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 1871/2016 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, PUNALUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3: JOHNY LUKOSE THE NEWS DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, M.M.T.V LTD, N.H.BYPASS ROAD, AROOR P.O.,ALAPPUZHA - 688 534. BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS 1 & 2/ACCUSED & STATE:
1 G.SURENDRAN (K/424/1979) AGED 64, ADVOCATE,PUNALUR, S/O. GOPALAN, RESIDING AT ARAMAM,THAZHAMEL MURI, ANCHAL VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK,KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE - 691 306. 2 DR.SEBASTIAN PAUL ADVOCATE, BCK ENROLMENT NO. K/350/1981,S/O. M.S.PAUL, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, ST.FRANCIS CHURCH CROSS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018,PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MANJAPPILLI HOUSE,PROVIDENCE ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. 3 M.G.RADHAKRISHNAN EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, ASIANET NEWS NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,TC 26/621 (1 TO 13 NOS), SECRETARIATE WARD,OPPOSITE KERALA FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICEHEAD QUARTERS, HOUSING BOARD JUNCTION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI - 682 031 BY ADVS. SRI T A SHAJI SR ADV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.BEN TOM SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR SMT.K.KRISHNA
SMT.SABEENA P.ISMAIL SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.V.VINAY SRI.S.VIJAYAKUMAR (NALLOOR) SMT.VARADA SURENDRAN SRI SANTHOSH PETER-SR PP, THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.06.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.139/2017, Crl.MC.220/2017, Crl.MC.1190/2018, Crl.MC.1198/2018, Crl.MC.2846/2017, Crl.MC.4053/2018, Crl.MC.4128/2017, Crl.MC.7667/2017, Crl.MC.8901/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1941 Crl.MC.No.139 of 2017 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 1840/2016 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,NEYYATTINKARA PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: SEBASTIAN PAUL ADVOCATE PROVIDENCE ROAD KOCHI 682 018 BY ADVS. SRI.S.VIJAYAKUMAR (NALLOOR) SMT.LIZAMMA AUGUSTINE SRI.BEN TOM SMT.VARADA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NOS.2 & 3/ STATE:
1 D.VELAYUUDHAN NAIR ADVOCATE ANAVOOR NEYYATTINKARA 695 121 2 NISHA JEBI NEWS PRODUCER, MANORAMA NEWS, NH BYPASS ROAD, AROOR ALAPPUZHA 688 534 3 JOHNY LUKOSE DIRECTOR OF NEWS, MANORAMA NEWS, MM TV LTD, NH BYPASS ROAD,AROOR, ALAPPUZHA 4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA KOCHI 682 031 BY ADVS. SRI.AMAL KASHA SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SMT.M.ISHA SRI.T.A.SHAJI (SR.) SRI.T.B.HOOD SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.06.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4128/2017, Crl.MC.2846/2017, Crl.MC.8901/2016, Crl.MC.1190/2018, Crl.MC.1198/2018, Crl.MC.220/2017,Crl.MC.7667/2017,Crl.MC.84/2017,Crl.MC.4053/ 2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1941 Crl.MC.No.220 of 2017 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 1871/2016 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, PUNALUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: SEBASTIAN PAUL ADVOCATE, PROVIDENCE ROAD, KOCHI 682018. BY ADVS. SRI.S.VIJAYAKUMAR (NALLOOR) SMT.LIZAMMA AUGUSTINE SRI.BEN TOM SMT.VARADA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 G. SURENDRAN AGED 64, S/O.GOPALAN, ARAMANA HOUSE, ANCHAL P.O., ADVOCATE, PUNALUR 691305. 2 M.G.RADHAKRISHNAN EDITOR IN CHIEF, ASIANET NEWS NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED, HOUSING BOARD JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3 JOHNY LUKOSE DIRECTOR OF NEWS, MM TV LTD., NH BYPASS ROAD, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA-688534. 4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682031. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.06.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.139/2017, Crl.MC.4128/2017, Crl.MC.2846/2017, Crl.MC.8901/2016, Crl.MC.1190/2018, Crl.MC.1198/2018,Crl.MC.7667/2017, Crl.MC.84/2017, Crl.MC.4053/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1941 Crl.MC.No.1190 of 2018 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST 695/2017 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, CHERTHALA PETITIONER/11TH ACCUSED: KANAM RAJENDRAN AGED 68 YEARS CHIEF EDITOR,JANYUGAM PUBLICATION LTD,VEEKSHANAM ROAD, ERNAKULAMSECRETARY, KERALA STATE COMMITTEE, COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA,M.N.SMARAKAM, TC 24/466. GANDHI BHAVAN RD, HOSUING BOARD,THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 014 BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.SURYA BINOY RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN-682 031 2 THOMAS JOSEPH S/O JOSEPH, AGED 61 YEARS, ADVOCATEPVP BUILDING, T.B.ROAD, CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA, PIN 688 524 BY SANTHOSH PETER, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.06.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.139/2017, Crl.MC.4128/2017, Crl.MC.2846/2017, Crl.MC.8901/2016, Crl.MC.1198/2018, Crl.MC.220/2017, Crl.MC.7667/2017, Crl.MC.84/2017, Crl.MC.4053/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1941 Crl.MC.No.1198 of 2018 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST 695/2017 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, CHERTHALA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO15-17 IN S.T.:
1 MATHRUKA PRACHARANALAYAM LTD PERANDOOR ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM - 682 026REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI,RAJESEKHARAN PILLAI, ELAMAKAARA, ERNAKULAM 68202. 2 RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI RAJESEKHARAN PILLAI CHAIRMAN, MATHRUKA,PRACHARANALAYM LTD., PERANDUR ROAD,ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM 682 026. 3 JAYACHANDRAN NAIR DIRECTOR, MATHRUKA PRACHARANALAYAM LTD,PERANDUR ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM 682 026. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SRI.JOSIE MATHEW
RESPONDENT/STATE, COMPLAINANT & 1ST ACCUSED IN S.T:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2 THOMAS JOSEPH S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 60 YEARS,RESIDING AT THALANANY HOUSE, CMC-28, CHERTHALA,ADVOCATE BY PROFESSION AND PRACTICING AT SUB COURT CENTER,CHERTHALA AND HAVING OFFICE AT P.V.P BUILDINGS,T.B.ROAD, CHERTHALA, PIN: 688 524. 3 DR.SEBASTIAN PAUL ADVOCATE, S/O.LATE PAUL, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,PROVIDENCE ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 018.
BY ADVS. SMT.LIZAMMA AUGUSTINE SMT.VARADA SURENDRAN SRI.S.VIJAYAKUMAR (NALLOOR) SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.06.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.139/2017, Crl.MC.4128/2017, Crl.MC.2846/2017, Crl.MC.8901/2016, Crl.MC.1190/2018, Crl.MC.220/2017, Crl.MC.7667/2017, Crl.MC.84/2017, Crl.MC.4053/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1941 Crl.MC.No.2846 of 2017 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 1871/2016 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, PUNALUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2: M.G.RADHAKRISHNAN EDITOR IN CHIEF, ASIANET NEWS NETWORM PVT.LTD., TC 26/621, SECRETARIATE WARD, OPPOSITE KERALA FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICE HEAD QUARTERS, HOUSING BAORD JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695001. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031 2 ADV SURENDRAN K4241979 ADVCATE, PUNALUR, RESIDING AT ARAMAM, THAZHAMEL MURI, ANCHAL VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE-691501. BY SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.06.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.139/2017, Crl.MC.4128/2017, Crl.MC.8901/2016, Crl.MC.1190/2018, Crl.MC.1198/2018, Crl.MC.220/2017, Crl.MC.7667/2017, Crl.MC.84/2017, Crl.MC.4053/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1941 Crl.MC.No.4053 of 2018 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST 695/2017 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, CHERTHALA PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.9 & 10: 1 JANAYUGOM PUBLICATION LIMITED VEEKSHANAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682035, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, N.RAJAN. 2 V.B.BINU FORMERLY PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, JANAYUGOM PUBLICATIONS, VEEKSHANAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682035. BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.SURYA BINOY RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. 2 THOMAS JOSEPH ADVOCATE S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 61 YEARS, PVP BUILDING, T.B.ROAD, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688524. BY SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.06.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.139/2017, Crl.MC.4128/2017, Crl.MC.2846/2017, Crl.MC.8901/2016, Crl.MC.1190/2018, Crl.MC.1198/2018, Crl.MC.220/2017, Crl.MC.7667/2017, Crl.MC.84/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1941 Crl.MC.No.4128 of 2017 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST 695/2017 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, CHERTHALA PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 8:
1 MALAYALA MANORAMA CO.LIMITED AGED 60 YEARS K.K ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/CHAIRMAN,OFFICE OF THE MALAYALA MANORAMA, KOTTAYAM 2 PHILIP MATHEW MANAGING EDITOR,MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. LTDK.K ROAD, KOTAYAM 686 001 3 MARY KURIEN DIRECTOR MALAYALA MANORAM CO.LTDK.K ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 001 4 KOSHY ABRAHAM,DIRECTOR MALAYALA MANORAM CO.LTDK.K ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 001 5 MAMMEN MATHEW CHIEF EDITOR,MALAYALA MANORAM CO.LTDK.K ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 001 6 JACOB MATHEWPUBLISHER MALAYALA MANORAM CO.LTDK.K ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 001 7 NISHA JEBY READER,MALAYALA MANORAM CO.LTDK.K ROAD, KOTTAYAM 686 001 BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/1ST ACCUSED/STATE :
1 SHRI THOMAS JOSEPH S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT THALANANY HOUSE,CMC-28,CHERTHALA,ADVOCATE BY PROFESSION AND PRACTICING AT SUB COURT CENTER, CHERTHALA AND HAVING OFFICE AT P.V.P BUILDINGS, T.B ROAD, CHERTHALA, PIN 688 524. 2 DR.SEBASTIAN PAUL S/O. LATE PAUL,AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, PROVIDENCE ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 018. 3 STATE OF KERALA REPRSENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 031 BY ADVS. SMT.LIZAMMA AUGUSTINE SMT.VARADA SURENDRAN SRI.S.VIJAYAKUMAR (NALLOOR) SRIS.SANTHOSH PETER, SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.06.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.139/2017, Crl.MC.2846/2017, Crl.MC.8901/2016, Crl.MC.1190/2018, Crl.MC.1198/2018, Crl.MC.220/2017, Crl.MC.7667/2017, Crl.MC.84/2017, Crl.MC.4053/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1941 Crl.MC.No.7667 of 2017 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST 695/2017 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, CHERTHALA PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.18 TO 20: 1 MADHYAMAM DAILY IDEAL PUBLICATION TRUST, SILVER HILLS, KOZHIKODE - 12, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/CHAIRMAN. 2 T.K. FAROOK PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, MADHYAMAM DAILY, IDEAL PUBLICATION TRUST, SILVER HILLS, KOZHIKODE - 12. 3 O. ABDUL RAHMAN EDITOR, MADHYAMAM DAILY, IDEAL PUBLICATION TRUST, SILVER HILLS, KOZHIKODE - 12. BY ADVS. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.V.S.THOSHIN RESPONDENT/ DE FACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 THOMAS JOSEPH S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT THALANANY HOUSE, CMC-28, CHERTHALA AND HAVING OFFICE AT PVP BUILDING, T.B. ROAD, CHERTHALA, PIN - 688 524. 2 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. BY SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.06.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.139/2017, Crl.MC.4128/2017, Crl.MC.2846/2017, Crl.MC.8901/2016, Crl.MC.1190/2018, Crl.MC.1198/2018, Crl.MC.220/2017, Crl.MC.84/2017, & Crl.MC.4053/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1941 Crl.MC.No.8901 of 2016 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 1840/2016 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -III,NEYYATTINKARA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 & 3: 1 NISH JEBI NEWS PRODUCER, MANORAMA NEWS, M.M.T.V. LTD., N.H.BYPASS ROAD, AROOR P.O, ALAPPUZHA-688534. 2 JOHNY LUKOSE DIRECTOR OF NEWS, MANORAMA NEWS, M.M.T.V. LTD.,N.H.BYPASS ROAD, AROOR P.O, ALAPPUZHA-688534. BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/1ST ACCUSED & STATE:
1 D.VELAYUDHAN NAIR S/O. DIVAKARAN NAIR, ADVOCATE, SRI RENGAM, ANAVOOR DESOM,ANAVOOR VILLAGE, ANAVOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK-695121. 2 DR.SEBASTIAN PAUL S/O. M.S.PAUL, MANJAPALLY HOUSE, PROVIDENCE ROAD, KOCHI-682018. 3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031. BY ADVS. SRI.AMAL KASHA SRI.BEN TOM SMT.LIZAMMA AUGUSTINE SMT.M.ISHA SRI.S.VIJAYAKUMAR (NALLOOR) SRI.T.A.SHAJI (SR.) SRI.T.B.HOOD SMT.VARADA SURENDRAN BY SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.06.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.139/2017, Crl.MC.4128/2017, Crl.MC.2846/2017, Crl.MC.1190/2018, Crl.MC.1198/2018, Crl.MC.220/2017, Crl.MC.7667/2017, Crl.MC.84/2017, & Crl.MC.4053/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This batch of cases relate to three prosecutions pending before three courts in Kerala. One case is before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Punalur, the other is before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Neyyattinkara, and the third is before the Judicial
First Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala. The petitioners in Crl.M.C. No. 220 of 2017, Crl.M.C. No. 2846 of 2017 and Crl.M.C. 84 of 2017 are
respectively the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in C.C. No. 1871 of 2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Punalur, the petitioner in Crl.M.C.. No. 139 of 2017 is the first accused in C.C. No. 1840 of 2016 the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Neyyattinkara, and the petitioners in Crl.M.C. No. 8901 of 2016 are the accused Nos. 2 and 3 therein. The first accused in this case is also the first accused in C.C. No.
1871 of 2016. The petitioners in Crl.M.C. No. 4128 of 2017 are the accused Nos. 2 to 8 in S.T. No. 695 of 2017 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala, the petitioners in Crl.M.C. 4053 of 2018 are the accused Nos. 9 and 10 therein, the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 1190 of 2018 is the 11th accused therein, the petitioners in Crl.M.C. No. 1198 of 2018 are the accused Nos. 15 to 17 therein, and the petitioners in Crl.M.C. No. 766 of
2017 are the accused Nos. 18 to 20 in the said case. The first accused in S.T. No. 695 of 2017 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,
Cherthala, is also the first accused in the other two cases. The different petitioners include some media persons and reporters of print and electronic media, the persons in administration of the media establishments, and also an advocate of the High
Court Bar Association. In all the cases, the said advocate is the first accused. All these prosecutions were brought by the members of different Bar Associations. The complainant in
C.C. No. 1871 of 2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Punalur, is a member of the Punalur Bar Association, the complainant in C.C. No. 1840 of 2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Neyyattinkara, is the President of the Neyyattinkara Bar Association, and the complainant in S.T. No. 695 of 2017 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala, is a Member of the Cherthala Bar Association.
2. The offence alleged in all the cases is defamation, punishable under Section 500 of the
Indian Penal Code. The issue is concerning a statement of criticism made by the first accused (advocate) in the wake of a tussle between some members of the High Court Bar Association, and some media persons in connection with a row over the news spread and published about a member of the High Court Bar Association in connection with a pending police case and court proceedings against
him. As part of the row and tussle, some lawyers of the High Court Bar Association, and also some media persons turned violent near the court premises, and this led to an unpleasant and inexcusable open fight between the two groups. This unpleasant situation which cannot at all be
expected in a set up where the two groups are expected to honour each other, led to severe criticism from different corners, including some members of the High Court Bar Association. The
first accused, who is also a member of the High Court Bar Association made a criticism by way of an open statement through media against the Advocates, and specifically against the members of the High Court Bar Association who turned violent near the High Court premises. During such criticism of intolerance on the part of the Advocates, he even compared them to stray dogs. This comparison in the statements led to the present complaints against
the Advocate, and along with him, some media persons are also being prosecuted. The allegation in the complaints is that the said statement made by the Advocate has seriously affected the reputation of the lawyer community as a whole, and the members of the High Court Bar Association particularly, and that such a statement has lowered them down very much in the estimation of the general public. On such allegations, different
Advocates made complaints before the three courts, and after necessary enquiry, cognizance was taken at the three courts under Section 500 IPC against the advocate and others. Those prosecutions are sought to be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. The two important questions for
consideration in these matters are (a) whether the Advocates of the High Court Bar Association or Advocates generally to whom the 1st accused has referred in his statement of criticism will constitute a “class” as meant under the law, and
(b) whether the statement allegedly made by the
Advocate can be said to be defamatory in any sense. The 1st issue, as to whether lawyers collectively can be said to be an identifiable
class came up for consideration before this Court in Malayala Manorama Co.Ltd V. Deepak [2018 (1) KLT 928], and this court answered the point against the lawyer community. It appears that nobody has challenged the said decision of the learned Single Judge.
4. Defamation is defined under Section 499 of the I.P.C 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 expected, to defame that person.”
5. Explanation 2 to Section 499 I.P.C is that it may amount to defamation to make an imputation
concerning a company or an association or collection of persons. But to come under the explanation 2 to Section 499 I.P.C, the class of persons must be a distinct and identifiable class
with its own identity, unity, characteristics, ways
and objectives. A mere collection of persons cannot be said to be a class of persons as meant under the law. A mere collection of individuals may have different characters within it, and it
may consist of different elements. A class of persons consisting of different elements of different character and culture, or different ways
or means or object cannot be said to be a class of persons as meant by explanation 2 to Section 499
IPC. Here the class is the class of Advocates meant and referred to by the maker of the statement. Advocates in Kerala have their own collective body under the Bar Council, and at different court centres we have different
collection of Advocates forming Bar Associations. All the Bar Associations consist of only Advocates having commonness in practice everywhere. Anyway, the legal issue stands concluded by this Court, and that too in a case involving the very same statement made by the very same Advocate. So I need not make further probe into that aspect.
6. Now the short question is whether the
alleged statement made by the 1st accused can be said to be defamatory. To make it defamatory and punishable under Section 500 I.P.C, it must be a statement that will have the effect of harming the reputation of Advocates, or lowering them down in the estimation of the others. Any statement made or words spoken against a person with the object of
lowering his dignity or credit or character will cause a prosecution under Section 500 I.P.C. [2015 (4) KLT SN 71 - Case No.86]. The stand of
the Advocate is that it is a severe criticism made
by him against the Advocate Community. What is required to constitute defamation under the law is a statement which contains imputations or
allegations which will have the effect of lowering an individual or a class of persons down in the estimation of others. A statement of criticism against an individual or a class, however scathing or withering it is, will not by itself amount to
defamatory statement. So also, an abusive statement that may cause humiliation or discomfort or annoyance to an individual or a class of persons will not amount to defamatory statement as defined under Section 499 I.P.C. In the instant cases, the subject of attack is a
statement of criticism made by the 1 st accused against the lawyer community or specifically against the Advocates at large in Kerala. He made such statement in the wake of a fight between some lawyers of the Bar Association of the High Court
and some media persons. Such fights happened later als,o after the unpardonable incident that happened near the premises of the High Court.
7. In deciding whether a statement against a class of persons is defamatory or not, it will assume importance whether the statement is from within or from outside. In this case, the statement
is not from outside but from within. A class of persons, if at all identifiable with distinct characteristics and features will consist of different types of characters and elements. When
a statement of criticism comes against such a class
from within in the wake of any untoward conduct on the part of some members of the class, such a statement of criticism cannot be said to be defamatory. It might be that the statement made by
the 1st accused caused annoyance or humiliation in the mind of some Advocates. It might be that some Advocates cannot tolerate such a criticism. But the question is not whether the Advocates can
tolerate the statements or whether the statements would humiliate or abuse them. Every statement that humiliates an individual or a class of persons, or every statement that causes some sort of intolerance or annoyance or discomfort to the members of a class or individuals cannot be said to be defamatory. Statements of criticism made in certain context, or in the context of some incidents that call for such criticism also cannot
be said to be defamatory because criticism is always criticism. Any criticism made with such bona fide intention, by a member belonging to either of the groups involved in the fight that caused the criticism, cannot be said to be a
defamatory statement. In this case, the grievance of the Advocates is that the 1st accused compared the Advocates to stray dogs. He made such a criticism or statement in the wake of the violent tussle made by the Advocates and the media persons near the court premises. The profession of law is said to be a dignified and noble profession. The members of this profession cannot behave disorderly
or violently in courts or court premises or even outside, whatever criticism or provocation comes from others. That is why probably the first accused made a scathing and cruel criticism against the Advocates. No doubt, the criticism or the statement made by him will evoke protest from Advocates. No doubt, it will cause humiliation and annoyance to the Advocates. But that alone is not
sufficient for a prosecution under Section 500 IPC. It requires something more, that such criticism or
statement has damaged the reputation of the Advocates or has lowered them down in the estimation of others. What matters for a
prosecution under Section 500 I.P.C is not what the
Advocates have felt from the statements against them, but what the others would feel about them on the basis of such statements. On an analysis of
the statements allegedly made by the 1 st accused, I find that it was not probably meant to defame Advocates, but only as a severe criticism against the Bar of which he is a member.
8. I find that continuance of the prosecutions against the Advocate and others including media persons will be an abuse of legal process. When there is nothing per se defamatory to lead to a
trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court cannot allow continuance of the prosecution. If the 1st accused has wounded the feelings of the Advocates, and if he has acted against the discipline of the body to which he belongs, of course, the Association can take necessary action against him. But that cannot be a ground to prosecute him under Section 500 IPC. The court's concern is whether the alleged
statement will in any manner impair or damage, the fame and reputation of Advocates as a whole. I do not think that he had any mala fide intention, or any intention to defame anybody, or to damage the reputation of the Advocates as a whole or that of any individual Advocate. I find that the prosecution against the Advocate and others is liable to be quashed.
9. The learned senior counsel appearing for
the complainant referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahib Singh Mehra V. State of U.P. [(1965) 2 SCR 823] and also the
decision of a learned Single Bench of this Court in
Jacob Mathew and others V. State of Kerala & Another [2013) (3) ILR (Ker) 547]. Of course, as regards the proposition canvassed, there is no dispute. But the principle in the context of this
case is covered by the decision of this Court cited supra in Malayala Manorama's case. Anyway, the crucial issue is whether the alleged statement is defamatory. When the court has found that the statement is not defamatory, it is quite immaterial whether the Advocates can claim to be a class of persons as meant under Section 499 IPC. In the result, all these petitions are allowed. Accordingly, the prosecution against the petitioners in CC 1871/2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Punalur, C.C 1840/2016 of
the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Neyyattinkara and ST 695/2017 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Sd/- P.UBAID ma /True copy/ JUDGE P.S to Judge APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 84/2017 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC NO. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRE'S COURT, PUNALUR DATED 10.11.2016. APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 139/2017 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED AT JFCM COURT -III AT NEYYATTINKARA- NUMBERED AS CC 1840 OF 2016 ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE COMPLAINANT APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 220/2017 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED AT JFCM COURT-1 AT PUNALUR-NUMBERED AS CC1871 OF 2016. ANNEXURE B- CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE COMPLAINANT. APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 1190/2018 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE ANNE.1 COMPLAINT DATED 04-11-2016 LEADING TO ST NO.695 OF 2017 BEFORE THE JFCM-1 CHERTHALA ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE LEARNED JFCM-1, CHERTHALA APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 1198/2018 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN ST. NO.695 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, CHERTHALA ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 2846/2017 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE I A TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF COMPLAINT IN CC MAGISTRATE COURT-I, PUNALUR. APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 4053/2018 PETITIONERS/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE ANNE.I COMPLAINT DATED 04-11-2016 LEADING TO ST NO.695 OF 2017 BEFORE THE JFCM-I CHERTHALA. ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE LEARNED JFCM-1, CHERTHALA. ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 20-02-2018 IN CRL.M.C.NO.5352 OF 2017. APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 4128/2017 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN S.T NO 695 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,CHERTHALA APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 7667/2017 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A A CERTIFIED COPY PF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED 05.11.2016 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1. APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 8901/2016 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.1840
OF 2016 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT III, NEYYATTINKARA DT. 31-10-2016. /True copy/ P.S to Judge