Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997(3)WLC463; 1997(2)WLN98
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the non-petitioner.2. This petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeks the quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner Dr. S.D. Khetani, who is one of the three accused persons against whom process was issued by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali (District Pali) under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code, after conducting an inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on a complaint filed by the non-petitioner, alleging the commission of an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed by the publication of a news item in Issue dated 1st August, 1989 of 'The Rajasthan Kesari Dainik' a daily news paper alleging that the Sarpanch of village Panchayat Sela, (situated within the sub-division Bali), was alleged to have misappropiated a sum of Rs. 10,0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1998]229ITR198(Mad)
Thanikkachalam, J. 1. At the instance of the Department, the Tribunal referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing to allow development rebate at 20% (Mistake for 25%) in respect of 'Pulp plant' as falling under Entry 16 of the Fifth Schedule to the IT Act, 1961 ?' 2. For the asst. yr. 1973-74, in the re-assessment made by the ITO, the ITO reduced the development rebate on the pulp plant machinery to 15% from the rate of 25% adopted in the original assessment on the ground that the pulp produced by the assessee was for the manufacture of rayon yarn and, hence, did not fall under Item No. 16 of the list mentioned in the Fifth Schedule. Under Item 16 of the Fifth Schedule of the Act, machineries manufacturing paper and pulp, including newsprint are entitled to 25% development rebate. In other case, the development rebate would be 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
K.M. Lahiri, J.1. This is a Habeas Corpus application. On 22-10-81, at about8 P. M., the petitioner was arrested under the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act'). The respondents, however, claim that he was arrested on 23-10-81. On 27-10-81 the detenu was furnished with insufficient grounds of detention. On communication of the grounds 'he petitioner made representation on 16-11-81 complaining that he had, not been furnished with the materials referred to and relied in 'the grounds' of detention. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this writ application on 23-11-81 questioning the validity of his order of detention and a Rule was issued, the Government Advocate Manipur received notice of the Rule on behalf of the Respondents, thereafter, on 1-12-81, the petitioner was furnished with the basic materials or the factual materials which led to the factual inferences drawn by the detaining authority to detain the petitioner under 'the Act'. We extract below the grounds of detention...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2001IVAD(Delhi)356; 91(2001)DLT321; 2001(2)RAJ236
ORDERJ.D. Kapoor. J.1. Plaintiff-Playboy Enterprises Inc. is a publisher of widely known magazine PLAYBOY which is pre-eminently sex oriented and male entertainment magazine though it is also interspersed with information on current affairs, issues of international interest, interviews of celebrities, articles on health, games & sports, comedy, cooking recipes etc. The popularity of the magazine is so wide spread that the plaintiff is known mainly through this magazine, though it has vast business empire which has diversified into manufacture, licensing, franchise and sale of a variety of products ranging from cosmetics, toilet preparations, watches, travel and office desk clocks, stationery goods and coordinated desk accessories, candy and confectioneries, costume jewellery, keyrings, coordinated bath robes and towels, decorative cushions, luggage, small leather goods, shoes, sunglasses and ophthalmic frames, pipes and cigarette lighters, sportswear, beach bags and towels, household l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC856; (1970)3SCC558; [1971]3SCR257
J.C. Shah, J.1. In compliance with our order dated March 13, 1970 the High Court issued a notice to Shukla. Shukla submitted his reply contending, inter alia, that he did not publish or cause to be published the offending statements in the newspaper Mahakoshal as alleged by Sharma. In paragraph 1(ii) he submitted that:He learnt about their publication only after and during the pendency of the election petition for declaration of the election of Shri D.P. Mishra as void. The person in sole charge of the newspaper was Shri Vishnudatta Mishra 'Tarangi' whose name has been printed as the Editor. The declaration under Rule 8, Form VI prescribed under the Press and Registration of Books Act (No. XXV of 1867) for the year 1963 shows that the said Shri Vishnudatta Mishra 'Tarangi' and not the opposite party (Shukla) was the editor at the material time.... At the time of his appointment the said Shri Vishnudatta Mishra 'Tarangi' had insisted that there would be no interference by the opposite p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1994CriLJ2933
T.S. Doabia, J.1. Pen may be mightier than sword but its wielder cannot be permitted to cause ripples in the serence and smooth flow of the stream of justice. The goodness of the motive to expose an evil is not the criterion in cases of contempt committed by members of Fourth Estate. Law in its wisdom considers it of greater consequence that the stream of justice be kept clear and pure and it must in the name of public interest and public justice strike a blow on him who challenges its supremacy. Before we proceed to notice the factual and legal position with a view to determine whether the respondents have in fact fouled the very source and the stream we would like to quote what Davis, C.J. said in the leading judgment of Full Bench in Emperor v. P.C. Tarapore, AIR 1940 Sind, 239 : (1941 (42) Cri LJ 1).It is immaterial whether the attack on the Judge is with reference to a case about to be tried or actually under trial or recently adjudged : in each instance the tendency is to poison ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 1994CriLJ3414
V.K. Gupta, J.1. On 17, March, 1994 we had pronounced the operative part of the Judgment whereby apology of respondent No. 1 was accepted and respondent No. 4 was convicted for committing contempt of this court and was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and payment of fine of Rs. ten thousands. We are now giving our reasons for the conclusion that we arrived at on 17 March, 1994.2. It shall be advantageous to refer to the background in which these contempt proceedings under Section 94 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution came to be initiated by two esteemed members of the State Bar practising at Srinagar, namely S/Shri B.A. Rather and S.K. Sharief Geelani, Advocates. In the issue of 7th M ay, 1990 of the Hindustan Times, New Delhi, a publication under caption 'Jagmohan faces acid test' datelined Srinagar, May 6, 1990 came to be noticed by the petitioners. This publication was written by Shri Anil Maheshwari, respondent No. 4 who was at the relevant time the corresp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC2206; (1992)94BOMLR63; 1992CriLJ3779; 1991(3)Crimes820(SC); 1992(57)ELT370(SC); JT1991(4)SC464; 1992(1)KLT1(SC); (1992)102PLR35; 1991(2)SCALE1045; (1992)1SCC217; [
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. We grant special leave and proceed to dispose of the matter.2. This appeal against a decision of the Kerala High Court raises an important question concerning the power of the Magistrate to drop proceedings against an accused in a summons-case after process is issued.3. The facts are simple. K.M.Mathew-appellant is the Chief Editor of Malayalam Manorma. It is a daily newspaper with wide circulation the State of Kerala and seems to be the largest language newspaper in India. Separate editions of the newspaper are published from different centers, namely, Trivendrum, Kottayam, Cochin and Calicut. At each of these centers, there is a separate Editor who is responsible for selection and publication of news items. The Chief editor is based at Kottayam and he is responsible for the general policy of the Daily and various other publications of the Manorma group of publications. Respondent No. 2 is an advocate. He was aggrieved by a news item published in the Da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1966P& H93; 1966CriLJ292
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This is an appeal by Ramesh Chander, who has been convicted by learned Sessions Judge, Jullundur, under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300 or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.2. The brief facts of the case are that a report, English translation of which is as follows, was published in the issue, dated 19th September 1957 of the Hind Samachar, Urdu Daily of Jullundur:--'How nepotism is indulged in under Kairon Government: For giving promotion to a favourite officer, the Chief Conservator of Forests granted leave: in the said Officer's Range, there has taken place misappropriation of timber worth lakhs of rupees but no enquiry has been held.Chandigarh: September 18: From a very reliable source it has been learnt that important changes are likely to take place very soon in the Forests Department of the Punjab Government. It is said that the present Forest Minister of the Punjab is no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2989; 2002(2)ALD(Cri)463; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)324; 2002CriLJ4111; 2002(4)Crimes17(SC); JT2002(8)SC248; 2002(3)KLT282(SC); 2002(6)SCALE82; (2002)6SCC670; [2002]SUPP1SCR6
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. Common questions of law arise in these appeals. hence they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Appellants are either Managing Editor, Chief Editor or Resident Editor of their respective newspaper publications. Separate criminal complaints were filed against the appellants alleging that in their newspaper publications, libellous matter was published and that these appellants had knowledge and they were responsible for such publication and thus they committed the offence of defamation besides other allied offences. In all these cases, the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences and issued summons to these appellants. The appellants challenged their prosecution and contended that in view of Section 7 of the Press & Registration of Books Act, 1867 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), they are not liable to be prosecuted and that the Editor of the newspaper whose name is printed on it as the 'Editor' of that publication alone is...
Tag this Judgment!