By ShriKrishna Prasad
: RTI activist, Raman Kr.Yadav files the Revision Petition to quash the A.D.J(V) ‘s order of Muzaffarpur court : New Delhi, Oct. 16. An R.T.I activist, Raman Kumar Yadav, son of Sri Dev Narayan Yadav, a resident of Safi Daudi Market, Motijheel, P.S-Town, District-Muzaffarpur, State-Bihar, has filed a Criminal Revision Petition, bearing No. 965 of 2014, in the Patna High Court, and has prayed to the court to quash the impugned order of the Additional District & Sessions Judge of Muzaffarpur in the Criminal Revision Petition No. 188 of 2013 , dated 21 June, 2014.
Raman Kumar Yadav, in his Criminal Revision No.965 of 2014, has prayed to the Patna High Court, “ I pray that the Lordships may graciously be pleased to issue notices to accused persons to show cause as to why the impugned order of the A D J (V), Muzaffarpur in Criminal Reivison No.188 of 2013, dated 21 June, 2014, be not quashed and after hearing the parties pleased to allow the relief prayed in Para -01 of the petition for the end of justice in the matter and the Lordships may be further pleased to stay the proceeding till the final hearing of this petition.”
What is in the court order of Additional District & Sessions Judge(V),Muzaffarpur, Subodh Kr Srivastava?
The A.D.J(V),Muzaffarpur, learned Subodh Kr Srivastava , in the Criminal Revision Petition No. 188 of 2013, filed by the Chief General Manager, Dainik Jagran(Patna), Anand Tripathi and the Associate Editor, Dainik Jagran, Shailendra Dixit, on June, 21, 2014, ordered, “ So, the Code does not authorize private person to bring a case or suit for offences u/s 420/471/476 , if he is himself not cheated or forgery committed against him. There is statutory binding against the person for bringing such private complaint directly before the court which is not against the society but only limited to party either between persons or person and state. Moreover, the Judicial Magistrate is not authorized to hear ‘ public interest litigation’. In the instant case, complainant is not himself aggrieved by the conduct of newspaper management, if they have not made declaration or obtained registration from Press Registrar, in such matters, Govt. authority like D.M a representative of the State may take action or file case against the erring publication firm. The court should be circumspect and judicious in exercise of discretion and to take all the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, less it would be instrument in the hands of private complainant as vendetta to harass persons ( AIR 1992 S.C 1815).
On the basis of above discussions, I come to the conclusion that the order of the learned Magistrate is not based on sound legal principles. So, it is not sustainable in the eye of law, as such the order dated 30 May 13, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, is hereby set aside and accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The learned court below is directed to pass fresh order in consonance with law.”
Now, what is in the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Deepanshu Srivastawa (Muzaffarpur)?
The Ist Class Judicial Magistrate(Muzaffarpur), the learned Deepanshu Srivastawa, in the complaint case No. 2638 of 2012(Trial Case No.4309 of 2013) ( Raman Kumar Yadav Vs Mahendra Mohan Gupta & others) passed a historical order,
”I heard the learned lawyer in he complaint Case No. 2638 of 2012 in details ,and examined the documents. I find that there are seemingly prima-facie evidences against all seventeen named accused persons under sections 420/471 & 476 of Indian Penal Code and sections 8(B),14 & 15 of the Press & Registration of Books Act. I order the court clerk to issue ‘summons’ to all the named accused persons in the Complaint Case No. 2638 of 2012.”
Who are the named accused persons in the Muzaffarpur Complaint Case No. 2638 of 2012?
The named accused persons include (1) Mahendra Mohan Gupta (Chairman cum Managing Director, Mess. Jagran Prakashan Limited, Kanpur (2) Sanjoy Gupta, C.E.O cum Director (3) Dhirendra Mohan Gupta (Director) (4) Sunil Gupta (Director cum Regional Editor), Dainik Jagran (5) Shailesh Gupta (Director) (6) Bharat Jee Agrawal (Director), (7) Kishore Biyani (Director) (8) Naresh Mohan (Director) (9) R.K. Jhunjhunwala (Director) (10) Rashid Mirza (Director) (11) Shashidhar Narayan Sinha (Director) (12) Bijoy Tandon (Director) (13) Vikram Bakhshi (Director) (14) Amit Jaisawal (Company Secretary) (15) Anand Tripathi (The General Manager) (16) Devendra Roy (Regional Editor) & (17) Shailendra Dixit (News Editor). all belonging to Mess. Jagran Prakashan Limited (Kanpur).
What are the allegations against all 17 named accused persons in the Complaint Case No. 2638 of 2012?
In the Complaint Case No. 2638 of 2012, all the above named accused persons have been accued of illegally printing, publishing and distributing the edition/publication of Dainik Jagran( a Hindi daily) from the Muzaffarpur based new printing location in Bihar from April, 18, 2005 to June ,28, 2012 continuouly. They have also been charged with gobbling the government revenue of the Union and the state governments to the tune of several millions by illegally amd fraudulently procuring and publishing the govt. advertisements through the Public Relation Departments of Bihar and the Directorate of Advertising & Visual Publicity (DAVP), the Govt. of India,(New Delhi) from April, 18, 2005 to June 28,2012 without a break.
By ShriKrishna Prasad
Advocate
Munger
Bihar
India
09470400813
[email protected]
