Rao, Chairman Ramoji Group Of Companies And Anr Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
 Insc 650 (13
Pasayat & Lokeshwar Singh Panta
out of SLP (Crl.) NO. 3802 OF 2006) ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the application filed by the
appellants in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in
short 'Cr.P.C.'). The prayer was to quash the proceedings in CC No. 2/2006 on
the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad. The State of Andhra Pradesh
represented by Special Public Prosecutor filed a complaint under Section 200
read with Section 199 Cr.P.C. stating that with a common intention intending to
harm the reputation of the Government, of its administration, of the Chief
Minister, several minister and several public servants made a telecast on E
TV-2 channel with commentary knowing fully that the same would harm reputation
of public functionaries. The voice over the commentary was that of the
appellant no.2. Many expressions and words used in commentary are per se
defamatory. The appellants filed a petition in terms of Section 482 Cr.P.C. The
stand was that the complaint was nothing but gross abuse of process of Court.
The respondent opposed the application stating that on the facts alleged no
interference in terms of Section 482 Cr.P.C. was called for. With reference to
Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') the High Court
dismissed the application, holding that a prima facie case existed and,
therefore, no interference was called for.
many points were urged in support of the appeal, leaned counsel for the
appellants submitted that actually there was no intention in any manner to harm
reputation of the Chief Minister, of the Ministers or the officials and,
therefore, continuance of the proceedings would not be in public interest.
counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that after showing the
Chief Minister, ministers and the public officials in poor light, the
appellants cannot take the plea of innocence.
hearing learned counsel at some length, we think that public interest would be
best served in directing following broadcast to be made in the concerned TV
channel by the appellants within a period of one week from today.
telecast would be as follows:- "A news telecast had been made by the
channels E TV-2 on 22.11.2005 covering the visit of the Chief Minister of
Andhra Pradesh alongwith some of his ministers and officials to Putta Parthi Sai
Baba. The voice over commentary for the said telecast was provided by Smt. Kalyani.
It is clarified on behalf of channel E TV-2 that the content of the voice over
commentary was not intended in any manner to defame or harm the reputation of
the Chief Minister or his entourage of ministers and officials. If it has been
construed that way, it is clarified that same was not the intent and purpose of
the broadcast." Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that to show
the bonafides the appellants shall make the necessary broadcast within the time
counsel for the parties have agreed that all proceedings relating to the
broadcast shall be withdrawn and shall not be pursued.
appeal is accordingly disposed of.