On coming 23 March, 2012 Mr. Falgun Patel, editor of one of the most circulated vernacular dailies of Gujarat will appear before Metropolitan Court no. 25 to furnish bail in a case filed against him for publishing a defamatory cartoon before 14 years (on 29 July, 1996) against Mayavati. The cartoonist Mr. Chakor is dead, but the controversy is alive. We are publishing the cartoon and the court order allowing revision application of applicant Mr. Valjibhai Patel in the year 2005.
THE CARTOON
 |
| Mulyam says, sale, chamar. Mayavati says, mulyam, sale rustic, learn what to speak, have little Knowledge of the law. |
THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE AT
AHMEDABAD CITY
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 234 OF 2003
APPLICANT
Valjibhai
Hiralal Patel, Age-65 Yrs, Religion-Hindu, Occupation-retired, Residing at, 236, Dr. Ambedkar Street, Near Futi Masjid, Dariapur, Ahmedabad.
versus
OPPONENTS
(1)
Falgun Chiman Patel, Editor, Sandesh Daily Newspaper, Rentiyawadi, Pittaliya bamba, Ahmedabad - 380 001.
(2) The
State of Gujarat.
Shri P. N.
Patel, learned advocate, for the opponent No. 1.
Shri M.C. Vaghela, learned APP for the opponent-State.
Shri M.C. Vaghela, learned APP for the opponent-State.
JUDGMENT
1. The
revision arises out of an order dated 7-8-2003 passed by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 18, which order had the effect of allowing
‘c’ summary to be filed in the proceedings arising out of a complaint filed by
the present applicant involving alleged commission of offence punishable under
Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Being aggrieved by such order, the present revision
has come to be filed.
2. The brief
facts that are required to be narrated for the purpose of better understanding
of the questions involved herein are required to be narrated as hereinafter
follows:-
It
appears that the opponent No. 1 is the managing editor and publisher of daily
newspaper Sandesh and it appears that an offending cartoon was published in the
said newspaper dated 29-7-1996 which, according to the applicant, was intended
to be offensive and detrimentally affect the sentiments of the persons
belonging to the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes, inasmuch as the
cartoon portrays and projects the erstwhile chief minister of Uttar Pradesh Ms.
Mayawati in a derogatory fashion and the present chief minister of Uttar
Pradesh being Shri Mulayamsing Yadav is projected to be abusing the said Ms. Mayawati
as belonging to the scheduled caste. It is submitted that the cartoon was
intended to humiliate the persons belonging to the scheduled castes and therefore,
a private complaint came to be filed by the applicant. It is submitted that an
order under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. was passed by the concerned learned
Magistrate and investigation was carried out by a senior police officer attached to Shahpur police
station and it is submitted that in the circumstances, consequent to such
investigation is carried out, the learned Magistrate thereafter surprisingly
accepted the report filed by the IO that no offence appears to have been
committed and the acceptance of ‘c’ summary is a clear fallacy on the part of
the learned Magistrate.
(3) Shri
Solanki the learned advocate for the applicant submits that the impugned order
is patently illegal and is required to be set aside. It is submitted that no
reasons have ben provided by the learned Magistrate which would justify the
passing of the impugned order. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate has
obviously misinterpreted the judgment of the Apex Court referred to on page-9
of the impugned order and it is submitted that the cartoon itself which is
offensive, inasmuch as the words ‘sale, chamar’ are clearly intended to be used
in an abusing manner. It is submitted that this is a clear offence prima facie
made out, to have been committed by the opponent No. 1 to have published such a
cartoon in his newspaper and it is submitted that in the circumstances, the
impugned order could not have been passed and it is urged that the revision,
therefore, be allowed.
(4) Opposing
the present revision, Shri Patel, the learned advocate for the opponent No. 1,
submits that the present revision is not required to be entertained, inasmuch
as the present applicant has no locus to file the complaint in the first
instance. It is submitted that in any case, a senior police officer holding the
rank of deputy superintendent of police has investigated into the complaint
upon specific order by the Court and having prima facie found that no offence
having been committed, has recommended that the proceedings be brought to an
end by filling the ‘c’ summary. It is submitted that it was not open for the
present applicant to oppose such recommendation of the police officer and in
any case, the learned Magistrate has rightly considered the report filed by the
IO and has rightly come to the conclusion that no offence being made out, the
proceedings were required to be brought to an end. It is submitted that in any case,
the applicant cannot lodge the complaint since admittedly, the cartoon in
question has projected and referred to only two persons, one being Shri Mulayamsing
Yadav and the other being Ms. Mayawati, and if at all, the cartoon does make
out even prima facie the commission of any offence, it cannot be open for the
present applicant to lodge the complaint in the regard, It is, in fact, only
the persons affected by the said cartoon, being the said Ms. Mayawati or Shri Mulayamsing
Yadav, who could have any grievance with regard thereto. It is submitted that
the applicant cannot, therefore, be heard to have any grievance in this regard
and it is submitted that in the circumstances, there is nothing wrong, improper
or illegal on the part of the learned Magistrate in having passed the impugned
order and therefore, the same is not required to be interfered with and
therefore, the revision rejected.
(5) It needs to
be noted that having considered the rival submissions and having called for the
records and proceedings of the trial court, it appears that a large number or
judgment have been pressed into reliance by both the complainant, meaning the
present applicant, as also the opponent No. 1. The same, in my opinion, are not
required to be referred to for the simple reason that I am of the opinion that
this is a fit case in which the proceedings are required to be remanded to the
Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for reconsidering the report in
its entirety. There is, in my opinion, from the cartoon sufficient prima facie
evidence as would suggest commission of an offence which would offend the
sentiments of the persons belonging to the scheduled castes and/or the
scheduled tribes. The Kerala High Court in a judgment delivered in the case of
Rosamma Thomas & Othrs. V/s Circle Inspector of Police, Tripunithara &
Othrs. as reported in 1999 Cri. L.J. 1666 has clearly laid down a ration
that an offence or intention to insult or humiliate a member of the schedule
tribe in a public place prima facie would make out an offence committed under
Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act and the questions as to whether mere
calling by caste name is an offence, whether the accused had any intention or
not cannot be gone into at an early stage and an FIR cannot be quashed at the
threshold. I do not find much merit in the submissions of Shri Patel that the
present applicant had no locus to filed the complaint and pursue the present
revision. A bare reading of the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Atrocities
Act, more particularly in Section 3(1) (x) of the said Act, would make it
abundantly clear that what is contemplated is an offence committed by a person
with an intention of publicly humiliating the persons belonging to the
scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes. There is nothing, in my opinion,
which would emerge from the said provisions which would even remotely prohibit
or bar a person belonging to the scheduled caste from filling a complaint with
regard to such public humiliation even if he is not directly affected by the
same. In my opinion, it would be necessary to reproduce the provisions
contained in Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act for a better understanding
thereof, which run as thus :-
3. Punishments for offences of atrocities:-
(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, -
(x) Intentionally insults or intimidates with
intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in ay
place within public view:
Shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less then six months
but which may extend to five years and with fine.
In my
opinion, therefore, there is no merit in the submissions made by Shri Patel in
this regard. Again, it would be incorrect and inappropriate to quash the FIR at
the threshold which is exactly what the impugned order has had the effect of
doing. In my opinion, therefore, the impugned order is required to be
reconsidered and the parties are required to be given an opportunity of
reagitating their respective versions and I, therefore, pass the following
order :-
ORDER
The
revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 7/8/2003 is quashed and set
aside. The proceedings are remanded to the Court of learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, Court No. 18, with direction to reconsider the application moved by
the IO attached to Shahpur police station and is only after considering the
facts and circumstances in light of the provisions contained in Section 3(1)(x)
of the Atrocities Act, that appropriate order be passed thereupon. The revision
accordingly stands disposed of.
Pronounced in the open Court today on this 31st day of January,
2005.
(P. B. Desai)
Additional Sessions Judge
Court No. 6, Ahmedabad City
No comments:
Post a Comment