Sikkim High Court refuses to quash defamation case against Malayalam daily Mathrubhumi

The Sikkim High Court on Saturday refused to quash a magistrate's order taking cognizance of the offence of criminal defamation and issuing summons to Malayalam publication Mathrubhumi [The Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Company Limited v. Santiago Martin]..Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai said that the argument that the publication's editors could not be prosecuted for publication of the alleged defamatory article held no water at this stage, in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions.In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Mohd Abdulla Khan v. Prakash K, where it was held that a person who has printed the matter within the meaning of the expression under Section 501 (printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) would be liable for penalty..The respondent, Santiago Martin, known as the 'Lottery King', was aggrieved by alleged defamatory statements attributed to then Finance Minister of Kerala that were published by Mathrubhumi.The newspaper had published a statement attributed to the Finance Minister, who said that “lottery mafia like Santiago Martin will not be allowed to operate in Kerala.”.However, the publication contended that they had simply published what the Finance Minister had said, and that the news item was published in good faith while believing the version of the Minister to be true. Further, it was contended that the article was a report in respect of the opinion of a public servant regarding a public question and public policy..On the other hand, the respondent underscored that public good has to be determined on the facts of each case and that good faith and public good were questions of fact..The judge, while agreeing with the respondent, said that the question of good faith has to be tested by evidence and decided after a trial is held.“On the bedrock of the principles enunciated in the above ratiocination, the bona fides of the Petitioners in publishing the alleged defamatory statement, said to be in good faith and for serving the public good, are questions of fact which are required to be tested by evidence and decided after the regular trial is held, and cannot be truncated at this stage,” the judgment said..Therefore, the Court declined to interfere at this stage. Additionally, the prayer for exemption of the petitioners’ personal appearance was also refused..Senior Advocate Anmole Prasad and Advocates Tashi Rapten Barfungpa and Hemlal Manger appeared for the petitioners.Senior Advocate Kishore Datta and Advocates Laxmi Chakraborty, Ayan Banerjee and Zangpo Sherpa represented the respondents..[Read Order]