IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5658 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
M/S. SAMAYA T.V. OWNED BY M/S. RAVIPATI BROADCASTERS PVT. LTD., BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SRI. RAVIPATI SRINIVASARAVI CHANDRASEKAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS NO.482, RVS COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, 80 FEET ROAD, HMT LAYOUT, R.T. NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 032 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GAUTAM S. BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE) AND:
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION/SCB/ A WING, III FLOOR, RAJAJI BHAWAN, BESANT NAGAR CHENNAI – 600 090 CAMP BANGALORE – 01 REP. BY DY. SPL. P.P ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL. PP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER DIRECTING THE QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 02.01.2015 PASSED BY THE COURT OF XVII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE, SUMMONING THE PETITIONER TO FACE TRIAL IN PROCEEDINGS ARISING OUT OF IN C.C. NO.175/2015 CHARGE SHEET NO. B.P.S/02 FILED IN FIR BEARING RC NO.11[S]/2013 DATED 30.09.2013 U/S. 120-B, 153A[1][b] OF IPC, SEC. 66-A OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT AND SEC. 5 AND 16 OF THE CABLE TELEVISION NETWORK REGULATION ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
2. Petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings arising out of charge sheet No.B.P.S./02 filed in FIR bearing No.RC No.11[S]/2013 dated 30.09.2013 for the offences under sections 120-B, 153A[1][b] of IPC, section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and sections 5 and 16 of the Cable Television Networks [Regulation] Act, 1995.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three fold contentions. Firstly, he contends that the petitioner is described as M/s. Samaya TV owned by M/s. Ravipati Broadcasters Pvt. Ltd.,. Referring to the very document filed by the respondent in the charge sheet, namely, Annexure-B, learned counsel has pointed out that M/s. Ravipati Broadcasters Pvt. Ltd., was incorporated under the Companies Act vide Certificate of Incorporation dated 21.11.2013. The said company having come into existence on 21.11.2013 could not have committed offence on 2.3.2012 as alleged in the charge sheet. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner is patently illegal and without authority of law.
4. Secondly, it is submitted that among other charges, charge sheet is also laid for the offence under section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The said provision is struck down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and hence this charge cannot stand against the petitioner and on this ground also, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
5. Thirdly, he contends that the allegations made against the petitioner do not attract the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 153A of IPC. The charge sheet does not contain any specific allegations constituting the said offence and hence prosecution of the petitioner is unsustainable.
6. Lastly, he submits that the company being a legal entity cannot be vicariously held liable for the acts committed by the representatives or any other agents. In support of the same, learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION’ reported in AIR 2015 SC 923 [Paragraph-37]. On this point, he contends that as on the date of the alleged commission of offence, Mr. Ravipati Srinivasaravi Chandrasekar was not the Director of Samaya TV or M/s. Ravipati Broadcasters Pvt. Ltd.,. Form-32 produced along with the charge sheet indicates that he became the Director of M/s. Ravipati Broadcasters Pvt. Ltd., only on 20.03.2014 and therefore the petitioner could not have been prosecuted for the alleged offence in his capacity as Director of the said company. In support of this contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘ANITA MALHOTRA v. APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL AND ANOTHER’ reported in [2012] 1 SCC 520 [Paragraphs 10 to 12].
7. Refuting the contentions, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent fairly concedes that the charge under section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 cannot stand in view of the striking down of the said provision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, so far as other contentions urged by the petitioner are concerned, learned counsel submits that there are specific allegations in the charge sheet at clause 16.2.14 which squarely fall within the ambit of Section 153A of IPC.
8. Insofar as the prosecution of the petitioner in his capacity as Director is concerned, learned counsel would submit that if for any reason, the petitioner is not the authorized representative of the said company either on the date of the commission of the offence or at the time of laying the charge sheet, appropriate remedy is available to the petitioner to raise the issue before the trial Court inviting an order under section 305[6] of Cr.PC. Further the learned counsel for the respondent submits as a matter of fact, the petitioner has already filed such an application before the trial Court and the same is pending consideration and therefore even this contention is also not legally tenable. Further, he submits that the petitioner is not sought to be prosecuted in his capacity as Director and therefore even on factual score, this contention is not tenable.
9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, in my view, all the four contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are liable to be rejected. Insofar as the contention regarding incorporation of M/s. Ravipati Broadcasters Pvt. Ltd., is concerned, there could be no dispute with regard to the fact that the Certificate of Incorporation dated 21.11.2013 clearly indicates that M/s. Ravipati Broadcasters Pvt. Ltd., was incorporated under the Companies Act on 21.11.2013. But, in the instant case, Accused No.1 is not M/s. Ravipati Broadcasters Pvt. Ltd., rather Accused No.1 is described as M/s. Samaya TV owned by M/s. Ravipati Broadcasters Pvt. Ltd.,. It is not the case of the petitioner that Samaya TV was not in existence as on the date of commission of the alleged offence. The incorporation of Ravipati Broadcasters Pvt Ltd., at a later point of time does not mean that Samaya TV could not have been owned by Ravipati Broadcasters Pvt. Ltd.,. The contention regarding the ownership of the accused company cannot be decided at this stage. As there are specific allegations that Samaya TV had broadcasted the offending contents, in my view, prosecution of Accused No.1 is in order and therefore on the basis of the contentions urged by the petitioner, proceedings initiated against Accused No.1 cannot be quashed.
10. Insofar as the second contention touching the facts constituting the offences are concerned, clause 16.2.14 of the charge sheet reads as under:
“16.2.14 Investigation reveals that, after 3.30 PM few television channels started flashing news that, some Policemen weer killed in the stone pelting by the advocates. The accused Samaya News Channel has telecasted the following:
5:12 PM Public outrage against lawyers’ goondaism, Breaking News – Media murder, Goondaism of lawyers in City Civil Court. Severely injured Police Constable Muniappa. Lawyers pluck eyes of two Police Personnel?
5:12 PM Narayanaswamy, the Constable who lost his eyes. Breaking News: Media murder. Investigation by a retired Judge of the High Courot. Three Constables die due to lawyers vandalism. Cable cut across several parts in the city.
5:12 PM Lawyers’ detain Police inside the court halls, Breaking News: Media murder. Muniyappa dies in Bowring Hospital. Lawyers blind [Pluck eyes of] two Police Personnel.
5:12 PM Narayanaswamy, Police Constable lose eyes. Breaking News: Investigation by the retired High Court Judge. KSRP Constable killed by throwing chair.”
11. The above telecast, in my view, squarely attracts the ingredients of the offence under Section 153-A of the IPC. The statements made in the said publications, have a tendency to disturb the maintenance of harmony between different communities and public tranquility. Therefore, this contention also is liable to be rejected.
12. Insofar as the representation of Accused No.1 is concerned, charge sheet indicates that Accused No.1 was represented by its authorized representative Mr. Ravipati Srinivasaravi Chandrasekar. The charge sheet does not describe him as Director of the said company as contended by the learned counsel. Therefore, there is no factual basis to sustain this contention. If for any reason, petitioner claims that he was neither an authorized representative of the Samaya TV or was no way connected with Samaya TV at the relevant time, it is open for the petitioner to seek for determination of this issue by making an application under section 305[6] of Cr.PC. As the petitioner has already moved an application seeking adjudication on this issue before the trial Court, on the said score also, proceedings cannot be quashed.
13. Since all the contentions raised by the learned counsel are rejected on factual basis, the principles laid down in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be applied to the facts of this case.
14. In the result, I do not find any merit in the grievance raised by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned proceedings.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE AN/-