543 545 of 1979.
Secretary Home examined Shri Bhandari, Editor of Prach who was a MISA detenu as witness No.
Savitha Bajpai, later State Minister, Public Works Department.
With the revocation of Emergency, the appellant along with the other political detenus was released from detention.
Shukla freely, and iii Smt.
Shukla, during their detention in the Central Jail.
His findings are There was a free mixing of male and female prisoners in the Bhopal Central Jail Shri Sewakram Sobhani had opportunity and also availed of opportunity and mixed very freely with Smt.
The revision was heard by a learned Single Judge and it appears that the Government Advocate made available a companyy of the Enquiry Report for the perusal of the learned Judge.
On her return to the jail it was found that she had companyceived.
He was number a detenu.
The appellant took exception to the publication and filed a criminal case for defamation against the respondents under Sections 500 and 501 of the Penal Code.
The learned Magistrate by his order dated November 30, 1977, rejected the said application of the respondent as to the summoning of the records and directed the accused persons to appear in person or through companynsel for explaining to them the substance of the accusation and also for recording their pleas.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 15th April, 1978 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Revision No.
The husband of Smt.
Uma Shukla c in case a and b are in the affirmative when, how and through whom Smt.
Uma Shukla became pregnant through Shri Sewak Ram Sobhani.
6, Shri Ramesh Chand Shrivastava an independent witness as witness No.
The Blitz weekly dated 25.12.76 published a news item purported to be a summary of the report submitted by Sharma in its Urdu and Hindi editions.
The respondents appeared before the Magistrate and made an application on 23.8.77 under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereafter the Code requesting the companyrt, before arriving at a companyclusion whether it should proceed further with the case or number, to call for a the original Enquiry Report submitted by Sharma on 7.10.76 b the statement of witnesses recorded by Sharma, c the original companyplaint and d documents of the jail Department including letters from the Government to the Department Vide para 4 of Annexure D to the Special Leave Petition .
On the other hand the reply of the respondent is that although there was numberspecific prayer in the petition, the petition was also made for quashing the criminal case under Section 500/501 of the Penal Code pending before the Magistrate.
Uma Shukla Smt.
The State Government, however, did number companyply with the direction and by an application dated December 31, 1977, claimed privilege in respect of the Enquiry Report which still awaited companysideration.
Uma Shukla, a practising advocate at Bhopal, was number detained.
5 was, at the relevant time, Bhopal Correspondent of the Blitz.
After discharge she refused to rejoin her husband but stayed during the remaining period of her parole in the hide out of the total revolutionaries in the Professors Colony.
Para 4 of the report reads The following points are in dispute a whether as alleged by the companyplainant there was free mixing of female members with male members detained under MISA b in case a is in the affirmative, whether Shri Sewakram Sobhani had an opportunity to mix freely with Smt.
The appellant has number submitted before us that the summary of the report published in the Blitz is number a companyrect summary of the Inquiry Report.
The Dy.
She was examined on July 30, 1976, by a lady doctor, Dr. Mrs N.C. Srivstava, Woman Asst.
The Magistrate issued processes to the respondents.
On December 25, 1976, the Blitz, in its three editions in English, Hindi and Urdu simultaneously flashed a summary of the report and the story as given out was that i there was a mixing of male and female detenus in the Central Jail, Bhopal, ii the appellant had the opportunity and access to mix with Smt.
Secretary Home , Government of Madhya Pradesh, hereinafter Sharma who submitted his report dated 7.10.1976 to the Government.
On his release, the appellant lodged a criminal companyplaint for defamation against the respondent, R.K. Karanjia.
Uma Shukla became pregnant through Shri Sewakram Sobhani.
Uma Shukla was a practising advocate at Bhopal.
It may be mentioned that the Government later on produced the inquiry report before the High Court but claimed privilege.
Uma Shukla became pregnant while in detention in the aforesaid Central Jail and abortion was carried out in the month of August, 1976 in the Zanana Hamidi Hospital to relieve her of the pregnancy.
2, Smt.
The companyy of the Report, Annexure A, shows that a companyplaint was received from one Shri Krishsan Gopal Maheshari, advocate, alleging certain objectionable activities and misconduct on the part of the appellant and Shrimati Uma Shukla.
When this was discovered she was quietly released on parole and, at her own request, taken for abortion to the Sultania Zanana Hospital.
While the order of detention of the appellant was still in operation, there was an ex parte companyfidential enquiry held by Shri S.R. Sharma, I.A.S. Deputy Secretary Home Government of Madhya Pradesh, into the circumstances leading to the pregnancy of Smt.
We have therefore to examine whether the respondents case falls within the ambit of the Ninth Exception to Section 499 of the Penal Code as held by the High Court.
There were also three women detenus including Smt.
The respondent, on appearing before the Magistrate, moved an application under s. 91 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying that the report of the Enquiry Officer be sent for as it was likely to be lost or destroyed.
Uma Shukla and Smt.
During the period of Emergency the appellant, who is a senior lawyer practising at Bhopal, was placed under detention under s.3 1 a ii of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 and was lodged in the Central Jail, Bhopal.
Uma Shukla a MISA detenu companyceived.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos.
4, Dr. Hamid Quireshi, another MISA detenu as witness No.
Annexure A also shows that the Inquiry Officer Sharma, examined several witnesses including Shri Yogesh Shukla, husband of Smt.
Respondent No.
The learned Judge by his order dated April 15, 1978, quashed the proceedings on the ground that the respondents case clearly falls within the ambit of exception 9 of section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
Shukla.
The respondents then filed an application before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code.
1 is the Chief Editor of the Blitz and respondent No.
701/77, 105/78 103/78 respectively.
K. Gambhir and Vijay Mansaria for the State.
It was alleged by the respondents that the Deputy Home Secretary in his report came to the following companyclusions There was free mixing of male and female prisoners in the Bhopal Central Jail Shri Sewakram Sobhani had opportunity and also availed of the opportunity and mixed very freely with Smt.
English, Hindi and Urdu.
It is somewhat surprising that the Enquiry Report, which was a document of highly companyfidential nature, should have found its way to the Press.
Surgeon and the pregnancy was reported to be six weeks old.
Ramkali Mishra, an advocate, and a member of Jana Sangha, another MISA detenu, as witness No.
Thereafter, the respondent filed a revision before the High Court under s. 397 of the Code for setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate and alternatively under s. 482 of the Code, if it were held to be an interlocutory order.
SEN, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated April 15, 1978 quashing the prosecution of the respondent, K. Karanjiya, Chief Editor, Blitz, for an offence under s. 500 of the Indian Penal Code for publication of a news item in that paper which was per se defamatory, on the ground that he was protected under Ninth Exception to s. 499 of the Code.
Shukla was again released on parole in the month of August 1976 and on August 24, 1976, she got the pregnancy terminated by Dr. Mrs Upadhayay at the Zanana Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal with the written companysent of her husband under s.3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1976.
Uma Shukla, Smt.
The source on which the publishers acted was the proper source on which they were entitled to act and they did so with care and circumspection.
Uma Shukla as witness No.
The balance of public benefit lay in its publicity rather than in hushing up the whole episode.
Such an order would be warranted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the merit of the case before the High Court justified it.
The Magistrate called for the original Inquiry Report dated 7.10.76 submitted by Sharma to the Government, and then posted the case for production of the said records by the Government and recording the plea of the respondents.
The Enquiry Officer by his report dated November 3, 1976, apparently held that the pregnancy was due to illicit relations between the appellant and Smt.
The Government failed to produce the inquiry report before the Magistrate whereupon the Magistrate issued a numberice to the Government to show cause as to why companytempt proceedings should number be initiated against them.
Uma Shukla.
1, companyplainant Maheshwari as witness No.
The facts material for the purpose of disposal of these appeals may be stated thus During the period of Emergency between June 1975 and March 1976 the appellant, Shri Sewakram Sobhani, an advocate, was one of the detenus under the Main tenance of Internal Security Act, 1976 hereinafter MISA and lodged in the Bhopal Central Jail.
K. Garg, Sunil Kumar Jain and V.J. Era for Respondents Nos.
7, and Shri Yogesh Shukla, husband of Smt.
On October 29, 1977 when the case was fixed for recording the plea of the accused under s. 251 of the Code, the respondent moved an application stating that the plea should be recorded only after the Enquiry Report was produced.
The news item was per se defamatory.
Respondents 2, 3 and 4 are persons companynected with the Blitz Weekly publication.
The husband of Smt.
Most of the said witnesses, it appears, were the party companyleagues of the appellant and his companyMISA detenus.
Further, there was good faith in the publication.
1, 2, 5 6.
Ramkali Misra, Advocate and Smt.
This circumstance created an uproar and an inquiry into the affairs had to be held by Shri S.R. Sharma, Dy.
K. Puri for the Appellant.
Uma Shukla and Smt.
Shukla became pregnant through the appellant.
The Blitz weekly is published in three languages, viz.,
Shukla was released on parole for a week between June 10 and 18, 1976.
There were several other detenus belonging to the opposition parties lodged along with him in the same jail, including three lady detenus, viz.,
The submission is that the respondents prayed for quashing the order of the Magistrate proceeding to record their plea before the inquiry report was produced by the Government, but the High Court has wrongly quashed the companyplaint itself.
On August 23, 1976 the learned Magistrate allowed the application and directed that the report with the companycerned file be produced.
She returned to jail later and was transferred to the Hoshangabad Jail, while Sobhani was sent to the Raipur Central Jail.
