CRL.M.C./1052/2008 of JAGRAN PRAKASHAN LTD. & ORS. Vs N.C.T. OF DELHI & ANR.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment Reserved On: 3[Jh September, 2011 Judgment Delivered On: 1rJh October, 2011 + CRL.M.C.1052/2008

JAGRAN PRAKASHAN LTD. & ORS. .. ... Petitioners Through: Mr.Jagmohan Sharma, Advocate

versus

NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

.. ... Respondents Mr.H.R.Khan Suhel, Advocate with Mr.Archit Upadhayay and Mr.Ankit Mishra, Advocates for R-2 51 Sanjay, ARC/Crime Branch

Through:

CORAM:

HON.BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? · Digest? ·

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

For orders see Cri.M.C. No.2111/2007.

October 10, 2011 dk

~~ (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

Signature Not Verified

/ * II\! THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI t\T NEW DELH! ~)

CRL. fv'l.C.2704/2007

CRL.M.C.2863/2007

CRL.M.C.3083/2007

CRL.IVI.C.l82/2008

CRL.M.C.l224/2008

51 Sanjay, ARC/Crime Branch

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? · to see the judgment? ·

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Digest?

PRADEEP NANDRAIOG, I.

1. Backdr-op facts giving rise to the present petitions are that on 03.06.2006 the Crime Branch of Delhi Police raided Rajdoot Hotel on Mathura Road and arrested 13 girls allegedly performing obscene dance in the hotel.

2. FlR No.391 dated 4.6.2006 for offences punishable under Section 294/109/34 IPC read with Section 8 CJf Immoral Tr-afficking Act was registered at PS Nizamuddin on the statement of Sh.Rajeev Kumar Chaudhary. decoy sen:, English Translation of which reads as under:

"It is stated tl1at I have· been residing at the above-said address and I am Horticulture Contractor- by profession. Today I carne towards jangpura for some wor-k. At about 10.40 prn you met me on the Mathura Road towards Bl1ogal side opposite Rajdoot Hotel. You told me that the Hotel Management of Eldarado Bar of Rajdoot Hotel illegally performing the dances with obscene actions. You have further told me that the Dancing Girls witl1 their indecent acts exciting for sex activities and tl1at tl1ey grab customers for illegal work. You have asked about this from 7-8 other-persons for their

Cri.M.C.No.Zlll/07 & conro.mLJtters

~ participation in the Raiding Party but except Dilip Kumar, S/o Shri Shyam Sunder, Employee of G-Star Hotel 22/7, Old Rajinde1· Nagar, no one a~reed to join and had left after giving excuses w_1~hout disclosing their names and addresses. I, D1l1p Kumar agreed t9king it as social responsibility. You handed over to me 4 currency Notes of denomination of ~500/= each bearing Nos. (1) 1-5 AA 67434, (2) 2-5 AJ 663436, (3) 3-2 AA 797785, (4) 4-7 AA 334165. After taking my search and afte1· taking signature on the Memo. You have given us instructions and advised us to buy the Entrance Ticket of Z500 each for entering into Eldo1·ado Restaurant, Rajdoot Hotel and advised us to witness the show. In case the girls do any obscene activity then Dilip Kumar shall come out of the Main Gate where Darba11 stands tl1rough the Reception and shall give the signal by keeping both his hands on his head. On this advice, we both went to Rajdoot Hotel around ll PM. There I purchased two Tickets of Z500!- each from tile Counter near the Reception from the Hotel Staff bearing Ticket No.23609 and 23610. We entered into the Bar and we saw tl1at on the stage i11 the corner four girls at time wearing colourful and half nude dresses are dancing and. near the stage the owner of the Hotel who has French beard, whose name we came to know as Babbu l<alra. He was telling the girls danci119 on the stage to show more obscene gestures and dance. On this the girls were showing their c.1eavage and thighs and also made gestures by hand towards their private body parts. On seeing this I started getting thoughts about sex. On tl1is the entire atmosphere became di!·ty and I also got excited and I sta1·ted feeling bad. But these girls carried on with their dance of obscene gestures. And like this two otl1er girls came on the dance stage turn by turn and made same obscene gestures to excite fo1· sex by showing such obscene gestures and after seeking tl1is we felt really bad. They crossed all the moral limits;. Cri.M.C.No.2111/07 & conn.mattcrs Page 5 of 27

On seeing this we were not able to tolerate and as per the irlstructions given by you, Dilip Kumar at about 11.30 AM went out to give signal to the Raiding Party. In the meanwhile this obscene dance was going on. All tllese Girls were performing these actions on tile instigation of tile owner of the Hotel Babbu Kalra. During this time, you along with Police party came inside the Hall and took under contro: the 13 girls with the help of the Ladies Police whose names are disclosed as undel-:

1. Pooja w/o Sumit Mahajan, R/o 52/16, Ground Floor, CR Park, New Delhi age 24 years. Floor, CR Park, New Delhi age 24 years.

2. !(iran D/o Chotelal Gupta, R/o Asira· Bazar, Tehsil Hasia, Zila Allahabad (UP) age 19 years. Hasia, Zila Allahabad (UP) age 19 years. 3. Maya D/o Suresh Kumar R/o Room No.117, Rajdoot Hotel, New Delhi Rajdoot Hotel, New Delhi

4. lsha D/o Kabir- R/o 40/50, 2nd Floor, CR. Park, New Delhi Delhi

5. l<arishma W/o Kapil Dev gilani, R/o I 3/68, Sector 16, Rohini 16, Rohini

6. Nancy D/o Islam R/o Hall Address, Room No.166, Hotel Rajdoot, New Delhi Hotel Rajdoot, New Delhi

7. Rekha W/o Robin R/o 797, Sector 19, Pocket-3, Dwarka, New Delhi Dwarka, New Delhi

8. Lily Dass D/o Pooran Kumar Dass R/o SF-16, Block-D, Kohey Fiza Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh Block-D, Kohey Fiza Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 9. Kareena D/o Kishan La, R/o F-40, jawahar Bagh, Shakarpur-, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi Shakarpur-, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi

10. Tabassum D/o Siddharth Bhardwaj R/o 200, Ls>dhi Road Complex, New Delhi. Road Complex, New Delhi.

11. Anjali D/o Sur-ender Yadav R./o A-703, Seventh Floor, Kanchanjunga Apa·rtment Dwarka, Nevv Dell1i Floor, Kanchanjunga Apa·rtment Dwarka, Nevv Dell1i

12. Maya Singh W/o R.ajender Singh R./o 1-Biock, Saurabh Villar, jaitpur, Badarpur-, New Delhi. Saurabh Villar, jaitpur, Badarpur-, New Delhi. 13. Reenu Saxena, W/o Sarab Saxena, R/o 727, Sector 19, Pocket 111 Dwarka, New Delhi. Sector 19, Pocket 111 Dwarka, New Delhi.

These girls witl1 their gestures and talks were instigating tile customers for tile wrong deeds and the customers were getting instigated to involve in wrong deeds. Apart from us, Shri Cri.M.C.No.2111/07 &. conn.matters Page 6

Apart from us, Shri Page 6 of 27

Rame.sh Balli, 5/o Shri Amar Nath, R/o 1692 Arya SarnaJ Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi and Shri Anil Kumar 5/o. Preetam Kumar R/o C-34, Shakti Nagar, Del h1 l1ad I so come to see the da nee and they were also shocked and angry to see tile show with about 50 to 60 audience who were also watching tile show. Out of all these audience, most of them were also instigated with the same vulgar feelings as we were. In this regard, police investigation shall be carried out against Shri Babbu l<alra whose-full name is Man Mohan l<alra S/o Sh1-i l<isllan Lal l<alra and 1 have handed over the two tickets whose numbers 1 have already given you along with the two ~500 denomination notes. Statement heard and it is correct."

3. An endorsement was n1ade beneath tile staten1ent which reads as unde1-:-

"ACP had the infom1ation of Rajdoot Hotel that tile owner Babbu l<alra and Prem Kalra are running dance Bar in tile Hotel where they serve ell-inks and girls from diffel-ent cities of India perform obscene dances. Whe,-e these girls with their-obscene gestures instigate the customers. This information was brought to the knowledge and secretly it vJas investigated and it was found to be correct. We the Raiding Team alongwith ACP, Inspector jeet Singh Special Team, Inspector Raj Vir Singh, ft.ATS/Crime Branch and Staff 51 Raj l(umar, 51 Bl1agwati p,-asad, Sl Buddh Parkash, ASI Ravinder Canst. Sanjay l<ain. Special Team 51 Pankaj Yadav, 51 Sehdev Rana, HC Bheem Singh, HC Tanveer, AATS Staff, 51 Surinder Rana, ASI Sameer Singh, Canst. Pardeep Hudda, Const.Sat Pal, Lady 51 Pushap Yadav and Lady Const.Kavita, 48, Crime Branch, Lady Const.Mukesh No.303 DRP, Lady Const.Anita No.2947/Crime. This team had already been called and instructed to develop on Cri.M.C.No.2111/07 & conn.miltlers Page 7 of27the information and the Police Station of the area"') V jangpura Mathura Road was informed about it and the team was pr-esent there. The secret informer informed that at this time also there are obscene dances/Cabra is going on in the Hotel Rajdoo~. On this information one Raiding Party longw1th Staff and Rajiv Kumar Cllaudhary along with Dilip l<umamr was prepared and the instructions were given to both the witnesses and were also handed over two notes of denomination of '{500/- each and were instructed to go into the Rajdoot Hotel and watch the dance and were further instructed that if any obscene activities are taking place tl1en witness Dilip l(umar would come out and would make the instructed indication. Thereafter-, all of us also took position around Rajdoot Hotel. At about 11.30 PM, on the indication given by the Witness Dilip Kumar the whole Raiding Par-ty went into Bar Hall of the Rajdoot Hotel i.e. Eldorado Restaurant where 13 gids who were dancing turn by turn on the stage and were making obscene gestures to instigate the people sitting in the Bar Room and Babbu l<alra who was also instigating them to perform such obscene gestures were taken under custody. The complainant Rajeev Kumar Chaudhary S/o Ram Veer Singh recorded his statement and case u/s 294/109/34 IPC and u/s 8 of ITP Act was registered. T.hat Case may be registered."

4. Tile police ,-eleased press ,-elease, which reads a~ under:-

"With the arrest of 13 bar-girls caugllt while performing obscene, sex provocative, semi-nude floor dancing shows at Rajdoot Hotel, Mathura Road, last r'light, sleuths of crime branch DeJ11i Police have been able to smash well organized, scandalous racket being run by the owners of the said hotel wher-e the dance bar girls from Bombay dance openly enticed/allure the visiting guests for Page 8 8 Cri.M.C.No.Zlll/07 & conn.mutters

Page 8 8 ofZ7

sexual acts while dressed in alluring and scanty dr-esses. One of the partners of said hotel namely Manmohan @ Babbu l<alra has also been arrested for abetting, aiding these dance bar girls to achieve their illegal designs.

An information was received at crime branch that the owners of Rajdoot Hotel are flourishing there business by organizing floor- dance shows where dance girls allure customers through obscene gestures, words, actions, wilfully exposing their person to attract the attention of spectators/guests for the purpose of prostitution. For this pur-pose tile hoteliers facilitates them by providing accornmodation at their hotel for carrying out their illegal, nefarious and antisocial activities in the gar-b of floor dance playing sexy songs/tunes. The hotel managerTlent charge each guest 'ZSOO. Tl1is information was developed by the officers of Anti Robbery Cell crime branch, specifically entrusted with this task. On verification through secret sources the information was found to be authentic. The hotel owne.-s used extra ordinary vigilant system using Hi-tecll security/monitoring gadgets installed at the various locations of hotel to ward off any checks on their anti social activities. They have hired number of musclemen, bouncers, extra guards to inform tl1em.

,-aid was organized on specific tip off at the premises of hotel Eldrado dance bar, under the supervision of A.C. P. P. P. Singh compr-ising the selected staff of crime brancll, after the decoy gave the predetermined signal. 13 dancing girls of the bar cum dancing hall of Eldrado in turn were detained along with Manmohan @ Babbo l(alra partner in the said hotel. case vide F.I.R.No.391/06 dated 4/5/06 U/5 294/109/34 I.P.C. & 8 I.T.P. Act has been r-egistered at P .5. Nizamuddin. Sufficient number of lady police Cr1.1Vl.C.No.2111/07 & conn.matters Page 9 of27

officers were also member of the raiding party.) J Investigation of tile case has been taken by Insp. Ran Singh of A.R. cell crime brancll."

5. It is apparent that the matter was of public concern and that was the reason why the police released press release. The incident was published in various newspapers the day next i.e. 5.6.2006 and since the above-captionea petitions per-tain to news published in 4 newspapers, wE reproduce the contents thereof.

6. In the newspaper 'The Times of India' it was reported as under:-

"Police Swoop on S.Delhi 'dance bar' 13 Girls, Hotel Owner Nabbed

New Delhi: An illegal dance ba1- being run in south Delhi hotel was busted by crime branch on Saturday. Fourteen persons- 13 dance bar girls and one of the hotel owners - were arrested on several charges, ranging from obscenity to immoral trafficking and abetment.

The accused girls were alleged!}' caught dancing in scantily clad state. "A raid was conducted on the premises of El Dorado dance bar in Hotel Rajdoot after signal from an undercover cop, who had been present inside. The girls were caught red-handed," said Tejendra Luthra, DCP (cl-irne branch). "We also arrested Manmohan alias Babbu l<alra, who is partner in the hotel," he added.

An FIR was registered at the Nizan1uddin police station under the relevant sections of the IPC and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act on Sunday. Tile gir-ls were later- released on bail. Police said the girls were aged between 20 and 30 and hailed from lower- n1iddle-class families. While four of them are from Dellli, two each are PCJge Cri.M.C.No.2111/07 & conn.malters

PCJge 10 of 27

from Bihar-, Noida and Punjab and one each from l<olk~ta and Allahabad. The last woman, the only marned person among the girls, said she was hotel guest. Police suspect that her husband was also involved in the racket. He was detained for questioning.

During interrogation, it was revealed that some of tile accused gir-ls were employed in Mumbai dance bars but after tllose establishments were shut down they were forced to shift base to the Capital. Crime branch officials were tipped-off about the llotel's flourishing business on account of floor dance shows.

Rajdoot Hotel had appare:Jtly been hosting clandestine shows for their clients since the past six years or more, charging ~500 as entry fees. Inside Eldorado bar-the dance girls "lured customers with obscene gestures". The owners of the hotel allegedly facilitated the dance bar girls with rooms where they indulged in flesh trade, apart from providing the dance floor. Further investigations revealed tl1at the hotel owner had an elaborate system in place to avoid detection by the police. "Sophisticated gadgets used for security monitoring were installed at strategic points to alert the hotel administration at the slightest hint of trouble," senior official said. "That apart, they had hired several bouncers muscle men and additional security guards to keep them informed of any law-enfor-cement activity in and around the hotel," added the official.

Undercover cops entered tile bar as guests late on Saturday nigllt, and signaled the raiding police team around 11.30 pm, after the "erotic dancing" began. Within min'Jtes, the llotel was surrounded by uniformed policemen."

7. In the newspaper 'Dainik Bhaskar' it was published as under:-

"13 GIRLS INVOLVED IN FLESH TRADE ARRESTED

Bhaskar News. New Delhi, 4 june, Delhi Police Crime Branch has arrested 13 girls who were in the flesh trade from Rajdoot Hotel on Mathura Road. The Police have said on Saturday night the Crime Br-anch raided Rajdoot Hotel and arrested 13 girls. They said the ages of all the girls were between 20 to 25 years. They are residing in Mumbai and working in Dance Bars. After the Dance Bar shut down th2 shifted to Delhi and started wot-king in Rajdoot Hotel and under the cover of doing massage, started working in the flesh tr-ade. The Police have arrested one middleman in connection with this. His name is Manmohan."

8. In the newspaper 'The Pioneer' it was published c:s under:-

"13 dance bar girls, owner of posh hotel arrested

The owner of hotel in posh south Delhi locality and 13 dance bar girls performing there were atTested after police raided its premises in the wee hours today, police said.

Acting on tip-off, Delhi Police sleuths raided Hotel Rajdoot near Nizamuddin and arrested Babbu Kalra, one of the partners of the hotel, and 13 bar dancers most of them brought here from Mumbai. Tile girls wet-e arrested on charges of performing obscene and provocative

sexual acts, while Kalra is being charged with J 7 aiding and abetting them, police said.

Most of the girls have been brought from Murnbai, where they were working in bars before the Mahal-ashtra Government closed them down police added" '

9. The next day i.e. on 06.06.2006 in the newspaper 'Tr:e Pioneer' it was further published as under:-

"Bar Girls back on Rajdoot Floor

Hotel earns more from dance bars than room occupancy

Neeraj Chauhan New Delhi

The 13 girls, who were caught while dancing, serving drinks and enticing guests at Rajdoot Hotel on Sundc;y were back, in business at the hotel's Eldorado, bar on Monday.

According to senior police officer, failing to l1ave brisk business, the three star-rated hotel served everything -girls, wine and music against provrstor·s of licer1sing act. More than 90 percent business of tr.e hotel was from dance bar girls, as room occupancy rate was very low. Rajdoot hotel is the only three star hotel in Delhi where floor shows take place.

The officer also informed that all these girls are from lower middle class families a:1d most of them are unmarried or divor-cees. They had worked in Mumb.;li bars earlier and know how to attract customers. ThE.y wer-e being paid '<10,000/- per month apart from wll(1t they get on the dance floor.

Earlier- 79 girls were arrested by Crime Branch fron: this hotel in 1988. Manmohan l<alra alias Babbu (50) runs this hotel in partnersl1ip with his brother Prem Cri.M.C.No.2111i07 & conn.matters Puge :1.3 of ~!7

l<alra but Prem, has nothing to do with Eldorado bar. The llotel managed to book only seven to eigllt rooms on normal day and l<alra was unable to pay the salary to its 80 staff.

He used to run two shows daily for two hours each from 8:30 pm till midnight. Entry ticket here was ':(500 out of which Z250 went towards entertainment tax. Liquor was too served in the bar and was ver~r expensive- bottle of beer cost '<485.

Customers were charged heavily for food. The bar has capacity 50 to 60 people. According to the officer, prostitution was allowed in the hotel rooms itself and big customers were given better deal.

The officer says, "If customer liked any girl and wanted her to dance again on his favourite song then he was charged Z2,500 for that particular song". Babbu himself used to prompt girls to make eye contact with the customers so that they throw more: money. Evel-y show yielded over zOne lakh to Babbu. He kept 50 percent himself, 10 percent was given to the waiters and bouncers and rest was given to the other staff. The girls used to keep some amount from the tip money.

According to the officer, Babbu himself lived in room no.318 with Russian girl. He told the police t!"1at the girls tllemselves contacted hirn. Most of the girls are in the age group of 20 to 24 except one Neelu. (name changed) who used to design dl-esses for the sllows.

Four gids are from Mumbai and were staying !n hotEl rooms. Rest of tllese girls are from areas like CR Park, Dwarka, Rohini, Lodhi Road and Laxmi Nagar of Delh·. The Delhi girls also used to stay in hotel rooms and indulge i1i prostitution. Babbu used l1i-tech monitorinq gadgets like CCTV carneras and magic eyes whicn

Page 14 cl'27

Cri.M.C.No.2111/07 & conn.mattcrs

we,-e monitored from Room No.512 and 513 of the hotel and if local cop visited there then the set-up was changed."

10. On 05.06.2006, in the newspaper 'Dainik Jagran' th.J2 news was published in Hindi ancl its translation reads as under:-

"13 Bar Girls arrested from Hotel

New Delhi, JS. Thirteen Ba1- Gil-ls, dancing in provocative and semi-nude condition, arrestecJ from Rajdoot Hotel at Mathura Road, by the Crime Branch of Delh1 Police on Saturday nigllt. Police has also arrested Manrnohan alias Bablu Kal,-a, partner of tile Hotel. Witll these arrests, police has unearthed racket of bringing Mumbai Bar Dancers to Delhi and making them to dance in Hotels.

It has been reported, that police had received secret information that the Bar Girls, brought frorn Mumbai, are being used to lure the custome1-s for prostitution by their stimulating dances in the Rajdoot Hotel. Fol- this purpose, the Hotel is providing the roorns and other facilities to its custome,- illegally. For r-eaching on the dance floor, for obscene dancing witl1 music, the Hotel is charging Rupees Five Hundred from each custome1-. Police l1ad infol-mation that to avoid any kind of raid, Hotel had got installed highly sophisticated Cameras and other equipments at various places in tile Hotel including Entry Gate. It was also learnt that Hotel owner has deputed Bouncers, Wrestlers and additional security guards to stop any raiding staff at the gate itself. This information was found correct when these were confirmed by the sour.ces. Thereafter, one police team, led by ACP P.P.Singh, conducted raid at Elderado DalKe bar and arrested 13 Bar Girls

Page 15 of 27

Cri.M.C.No.2111/07 & conn. matters

alongwith Manrnohan. case under various sections for indulging in the prostitution has been registered at Police Station Nizamuddin. The investigations of case have been entrusted to Inspector Ran Singh. On enquiry, it has been learnt that these Bar Girls belong to poor families and they are in this profession, since their minor age, due to compelling circumstances. The Bar Girls, in the age of 20 to 30 years, are in this profession for-years together. However, the Patiala Court has granted Bail to these Bar Girls."

11. On 27.6.2006 as follow up story in the newspape:r 'Dainik jagaran' further publication was made in Hindi, translated version thereof reads as under:-

"Murnbai Bar- Girls enticinq the hear-ts of Delhians Pradeep Kumar- Singh, New Delhi

Tile love for Murnbai Bar Girls in Delhi is famous tl1ese days. These Bar Girls, came in Delhi in tl1e search of jobs, are not only enticing the general public but also becoming headache for Delhi Police. The number of girls reaching from Mumbai to Delhi can be presumed with the fact that more than one and half dozen girls have been arrested by tile police within period of one month. As per sources, the nun1bers of these Girls have reached in hundreds, who are staying at Five Star Hotels, Kothis and Farm Houses.

It is well known that hundred of girls from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Prades[1]1, Gujrat and Delhi were earning from Dance Bc..;-s at Mumbai, but the closing of Dance Bars in Mumbai, disturbed their- routine and they get their new shelter at Delhi. There is another reason behind this, that most of the customers staying with these girls in Dance Bars and Five Star Hotels have connection with Dellli also. Some have their business in Delhi and some others used to visit Delhi o}ten

Cri.M.C.No.2111/07 & conn.rnatters

for their business. The geogr-aphical condition of ~} D':lhi also helps them. Some days back, the Cnme Branch of Delhi Police had arrested 11 Bar Girls from Rajdoot Hotel of South Delhi in raid. All these Dancers were enticing the public of Delhi after the closure of Dance Bar-s in Mumbai. Ar-rests have been made from Greater l<ailash Lajpat Nagar and Sarojini Nagar areas also: Another Bar Dancer of Mumbai was arrested with Raju Sansi, notorious Bank Dacoit, by the Special staff of South Qistrict, but she was released as she had no criminal records. It is surpr-ising that Bar- Girls have made connection with criminals also. Tl1ese criminals have connection with Mumbai also. As per police, it is matter of concern. The gangs of criminals can use these lucr-ative girls for kidnapping, loot etc. crimes. Their Company is giving double benefits to criminals. The Company of girls gives them easy way to get shelter and also in spreading their network. Police has information of all these incidents, but they hesitate to 11ab them in the absence of evidence. According to senior officer, despite the dismis-sal of one Sub-Inspector of Cdme Branch in the matter of Dance Bar case and Police Commissioner's keeping it in the category of an organized crime, the Station House Officers are opting to close their eyes from this side.

Hite-outs of middlemen: Besides the posll colonies of Greater l(ailash, Defence Colony, South Ex, Saket PVR, Vasant Villar, Vasant l<unj and Connaught Place, facility of dealing is available on mobile phones also. After finalization of deal, tile Bar Girls are dropped and picked-up in luxurious vehicles."

12. Alleging that the afore-noted news items wer-2 defamator-y of Hotel Rajdoot and its owner, Sh.Manrnohan l<alra, the stated owner of the l1otel filed complaints befor.:: Cri.M.C.No.2111/07 & conn.matters Page 17 of 27

the learned ACMM alleging that the accused named in \:tJ~~ complaints had committed offences punishable under Section 499/500 IPC. 13. I reproduce in tabular form the name of the accused· as also the designation and the concerned petition filed by the person concerned in respect to the 4 criminc1l cornplaints filed by 1-espondent No.2 pertaining to the news items published in the Times of India, Dainik Bhaskar, The Pioneer and Dainik Jagran. It reads as under:-

(A) Newspaper- THE TIMES OF INDIA

(B) Newspaper- DAINII< BHASKAR

Cri.M.C.I\lo.2111/07 & conn.matters

(C)Newspaper-DAINIK IAGARAN

(D) Newspaper- PIONEER

14. Defamation has been defined as false staJr1ent which has the tendency to disparage the good name or reputation of another person. Strictly speaking, in terms of the statute, as per Section 499 Indian Penal Code, the offence of defamation consists of three vital componerT~s which can be categorised as under:-

(i) Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person.

(ii) Such imputation must have been made by words either written or spoken or by visible representation.

(iii) Such imputation must l.Je made with the intention to cause harm or with the knowledge or having reasons to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned.

15. Petitioners contend that apart from the reporter, the editor, pr-inter and publisher- would be liable if scandalous publication relates to newspaper and additionally woui.::J ur-ge that if newspaper truthfully reports news itern, pertaining to fact which is of 'public interest, nobody can be prosecuted for the offence of defamation.

16. The complainant alleges that the news items are pE~r se defamatory and that all accused would be liable. 17. fair-reporting per-taining to matter of public concern, without insinuations and innuendos i.e. neV\ s item containing statements of true facts is not actionable fc;r the offence of criminal defamation. 18. 1 11ave relook at the news r.=:ports. They have been extracted by me in paras 6 to 11 above.

Cri.M.C.No.2111/07 & conn.matters

19. Pertaining to the newspaper 'The Times of India' tl·le news item is extracted in para 6 above. The contents of tl)e FIR have been noted in para 2 and 3 above. The press release has been noted in para 4 above. 20. Tile news item simply publishes the fact of the rard conducted and 13 dance bar girls being apprehended. The nature of activity as per the FIR at the dance bar has been reported. Similar is the position with the news item published in the 3 other newspapers. 21. would highlight that the source on which tr· .. publishers acted was proper source i.e. the police. The gtn exception to Section 499 IPC is prima facie attracted. There are no innuendos in the publications. fact pertaining to an FIR being registered with reference to tile activities found to be carried out from Hotel Rajdoot as recorded in the FIR has been published. The FIR was made public by the police along with press release. 22. Pertaining to the liability, pl-imarily reporter is responsible fot- his act of defamation and vicarious liability is fastened only on the printer, publisher and editor of the newspaper as held by rne in rny judgment dated 21.9.2007 disposing of Cri.M.C. No.35/2005 ~ Mrs.Shobh(Jna Bl7artia & Drs. l/S. NCT of Delhi & Ant~'. Thus, unless the contrary is proved the persons declared as printer, publisl1er and editor of the newspaper who would be presumed to be responsibl'e for the contents of the newspaper on the question whether any person other than the printer, publisher and editor can be prosecuted for defamatory article, apart from tl1e reporter, needs few decisions to be noted:-cri.M.C.No.2111/07 & conn.m<lttcrs P3ge 21 of 27

. "(i) State of Maharas/7tra v R.B. Clwwdhari, AIR I 1968 SC 110:-The public prosecutor filed complaint under Section 500 IPC against four persons who were members of the Editorial Board of Marathi weekly named "Maharashtra". One of the accused, Sudhakar Gopal Madane, had filed the declaration in the prescribed form under the Act describing himself as the editor, printer and publishel- of the newspaper. The particular copy of the Maharashtra in which the alleged defamatory article appeared bore the name of one Madane as the printer, publisher and editor of the newspaper-. It also sl1owed on the front page that the Editorial Board consisted of Madane and thl-ee other accused. The question arose whether the members of Editorial Board could be prosecuted for defamatory article. Adverting to Section 7, the Supreme Court held that:-"7. The term 'editor' is defined in the Act to mean person who controls the selection of the rnatter that is published in newspaper. Where there is mentioned an editor is person who is responsible for selection of the material. Section 7 ralses the pr-esumption in r-espect of such person. The name of that perso'l has to be printed on the copy of the newspaper and in the present case the name of Madane admittedly was printed as the Editor of the Maharashtra in the copy of the Maharashtra which contained the defamatory article. The declaration in Form I which has been produced before us shows the name of Madane not only as the printer and publisher but also as tile editor. In our opinion the presumption will attach to Madane as having selected the mater-ial for publication in the newspaper. It may not be out of place to note that Madane admitted that he had written this article. In the cir-cumstances not only the presumption cannot be drawn against the others who had Cri.M.C.No.2111/07 & co11n.mattcrs Page ZZ ZZ pf

Page ZZ ZZ pf 27

not declared themselves C!S editors of the L;) newspaper but it is also fair to leave them out because they had no concern with the publislling of the article in question. On the whole therefore the order of discharge made by the learned single Judge appe13rs to be proper in the circumstances of thP case and we see no reason to interfere."

(ii) T.KS.Muthukova v Ha/i CH. Moham;nad Kava, (1979) 2 SCC 8:-Question before Supreme Court was whether-the Chief Editor of newspaper can be prosecuted foi- publication of defamatory article. In para 34 of the decision, Supreme Court observed as under:-"34. From the facts established above, it is manifest that the petitioner has miserably failed to prove either that the appellant was the editor of the paper or that he was performing the functions, duties or shouldering tile responsibilities of the editor. It is obvious that presu!llption under Section 7 of the Press Act could be drawn only if the person concerned was on editor within the meaning of Section l of the Press Act. Where however person does not fulfil the conditions of Section l of the Press Act and does not perform the functions of an editoi- wllatever may be his description or designation, the provisions of the Press Act would have '10 application .... "

(iii) KM. Mathew v CJtate of Kere!a & Anr~, 1992 CriLJ 3779:-In relation to prosecution of Cl1ief Editor of newspaper for publication of defamatory news article, Supreme Court observed as under:-

"9 .. 1n tile instant case there is no averrnent against the Chief Editor except the motive attributed to llim. Even the motive alleged is general and vague. The complainant Cri.M.C.No.2111/07 & conn.mattcrs Page 23 of 2! I

Page 23 of 2!

) ; l L

seems to rely upon the presumption unde:=i Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 ('the Act'). But Section 7 of the Act has no applicability for person who is sirnply named as 'Chief Editor'. The presumption under Section 7 is only against tl1e person whose name is printed as 'editor' as requir-ed under Section 5(1). There is mandatory (though rebuttable) presumption that the person whose na rne is printed as 'Editor·' is the editor of every portion of tl1at issue of the newspaper of which copy is produced. Section 1(1) of the Act defines 'Editor' to mean 'the person who contr-ols the selection of the matter that is published in newspaper'. Section 7 raises the presumption in respect of person who is named as the editor and printed as such on every copy of the newspaper. The Act does not r·ecognise any other· legal entity for rarsmg the pr-esumption. Even if the name of the Chief Editor is printed in the newspaper, there is no presumption against him under Section 7 of the Act. See State of Maharashtra v R.B. Chowdhari, AIR 1968 SC 110; D.P. Mishra v Kamal Narain Sharma & Ors, AIR 1970 SC 856; Narasingh Charan Mohanty v Surendra Mohanty, AIR 1974 SC 47; Haji C.H. Mol1ammad Koya v T.I<.S.M.A. Muthukoya, AIR 1979 SC 154. 10. It is important to state that for Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence as against the Chief Editor, there must be positive avennents in the complaint of knowledge of the objectionable character of the matter. The complaint in the instant case does not contain any such allegation. In the absen~e of such allegation, the Magistrate was justified in directing that the complaint so far as it relates to the Chief Editor could not Cri.M.C.No.2111/07 & conn.mattcrs Page 24 of2.7

be proceeded with. To ask the Chief Editor to undergo the trial of the case merely on the ground of the issue of process would be oppressive. No person should be tried without prima facie case. The view taken by the High Court is untenable. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside."

(iv) Sardar N;ha/ Singh v Ar/an Das, 1983 CrLJ 777:- learned Single Judge of this court was considering whether the Cha~rman and Executive Editor of newspaper could be prosecuted for publication of defarnatory article. VJith reference to Chairman, it was observed as under:-

"Needless to say that as Chairman of the Cornpany Shri Goenl(a can be held liable for the publication of the offending news items only if it is shown that l1e was somehow concerned with the publication of the defamatory news items. It is highly doubtful that he can be asked to answer the charge of defamation merely because he happened to be the Chairman of the Company owning the newspaper without there being any further evidence as regards his participation in the actual management and administration of the affairs of the company. Intention on the part of the accused to harn1 the reputation or the knowledge or reasonable belief that an imputation will ham1 the reputation of the persons concerned is an essential ingredient of offence under S. 400, IPC but such evidence is totally missing in the instant case. Under the circumstances the impugned order as 1·egards Shri Goenka cannot be sustained on tl1is short ground."

After referring to Section 3, l!-, 5, 6 and 7 of the )rv Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the learned Judge added:-

"However, it is difficult to draw such presumption in the case of other petitioners viz., Arun Shorie, petitioner No. 2 and A. P. Dhar petitioner No. 4. Their names do not find place in the declaration printed on the newspaper itself and there is no iota of evidence to show that they are in any manner concerned with the collection control or selection of the matter printed i~ the newspaper·. Their designations as Executive Editor/Editor of the Express News Service will not per se warrant an inference that they are in any way responsible for the selection of the material. An authority for this view may be found in the State of Maharashtra v. R. B. Chowdhari, AIR 1968 sc 110."

23. From the afor-e-noted judicial pronouncement, it can safely be said that besides per·.s:ms declared as editor, printer and publisher- of newspaper, only such persors could be prosecuted for an action of defamation against whom specific and clear allegations have been made in the complaint that either he was responsible for selection of the defamatory matter or had personal knowledge about the contents of the defamatory rnatter. In addition, it must al5o be averred in tile complaint tl1at sucll person had u-.,e intention to hann or- had knm.vledge or reason to believe that the irnputation will harm the reputation of the complainant. The cl1aim1an or the managing di!-ector of company owning newspaper is neither the editor, nor the printer, nor the publisher and therefore no presurnption can Cri.M.C.No.2111/07 & conn.matters Page 26 of;7

be drawn against the holder of these offices even though they an~, by reason of tile office held by them, in charge of and responsible to the company for tile conduct of its business.

24. I do not find any such pleadings in the complaint against Vineet Jain, i\llahinder Mohan Gupta and Durbur Ganguly and thus qua them the complaints are liable to be quashed on the sole ground that merely because Vineet Jain is the managing director of Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., Mahincler Mohan Gupta is the Chairman-curn-Manag!ng Director of the company publishing the newspaper 'Dainik jagran' and Durbur Ganguly is the Joint i\llanaging Director of the company publishing the newspaper 'The Pioneer', on the reason of the office held by them,· they cannot be made liable.

25. Qua the rest I hold that the news items contain no innuendos. fact of an FIR being registered with the contents thereof has been published. The publication of the news item pertains to matter of public interest. The publication is true and faithful report of fact. highlight that the reporters have not carFied out any 'investigative journalism'.

26. The petitions are allowed. The complaints impugned in each petition as also the summoning order are quashed.

27. No costs.

·-• . - ,· ";.·~:.1J<s"-:X

(PRADEEP NANDRAjOG) JUDGE

October 10, 2011 dk Cri.M.C.I\Jo.2111/07 & conn.m;::tters

Page 27 of 27