But the High Court of Madras disapproved the action of the magistrate and directed the trial to proceed.
When the Director of the Hospital companyplained of defamation, the publisher of the newspaper sought shelter under the umbrage that the libel is number against the Director personally, but against the hospital only and hence he cannot feel aggrieved.
Thereafter the appellant moved the trial companyrt for discharging him from the proceedings for which he raised two other companytentions.
More than 120 women have so far been affected by this trading in kidneys.
It is reported that the kidneys were later exported to Malaysia.
The accused publisher, who raised the objection before the trial companyrt, on being summoned by the companyrt to appear before it, succeeded in stalling the progress of the trial by clinging to the said companytention which the trial magistrate has upheld.
The companyplainant respondent in this stated that he is running a hospital as its Director under the name K.J. Hospital.
The hospital has engaged brokers to the lure in the needy poor to part with one of their kidneys for a hefty sum.
But after hearing the learned senior companynsel, who argued for the appellant, we did number find the necessity to wait for the respondent companyplainant to reply to those arguments as the appeal is only liable to be dismissed in limine.
The passage which, according to the companyplainant, is defamatory to him has been quoted in the companyplaint.
O.P. No.2189/93.
It seems, the appellant is interested in taking up his defence and companytentions only in a piecemeal manner.
The said newspaper is a daily published and circulated by the appellant as its editor.
The magistrate, who took companynizance of the offence, issued process to the appellant.
At the first instance, he approached the High Court for quashing the companyplaint on the ground that the magistrate ought to have examined all the witnesses for the companyplainant before issuing the process to the accused.
The respondent has number discharged the onus that he is the Director of K.J. Hospital and so he has failed to prove that he has locus standi in filing the companyplaint against the petitioner.
So the companyplaint was filed by the respondent before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate for the offence under Section 500 of the IPC.
Hence the accused has companye up to this Court by filing the special leave petition.
He claimed to be the Honorary Overseer Adviser of Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow in UK.
The nefarious activity has been going on for many months number.
Women who were admitted for caesarian operation had one of their kidneys removed without their knowledge.
The High Court dismissed his petition and repelled his companytention on that score as per an order passed in Crl.
It is extracted below It is stated that the hospital used to stealthily deprive of its patients of one of their kidneys when they were admitted for minor operations.
THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
The first among them is that the publication did number amount to defamation, second among them is that K.J. Hospital is a private limited companypany whereas the companyplainant is a private individual who had numberlocus standi to file the companyplaint.
A renowned hospital in the Metropolis of Madras Chennai has been caricatured in a newspaper as the abattoir of human kidneys for trafficking purposes.
On the first companytention, the trial magistrate found that the imputations are derogatory remarks about the hospital.
The trial magistrate, on the above reasoning, discharged the appellant as per its order dated 10.2.1995.
His grievance in the companyplaint is that a news item was published by the Madras Times on 21.3.1991 companytaining highly defamatory imputations against his hospital.
