D.P.BUCH - (1.) Rule. M/s. B P Munshi and A M Mehta, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of different respondents and waives service of notice of rule. Mr A D Oza, learned Public Prosecutor appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the State. This is a group of 51 petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code') by the aforesaid two petitioners in order to pray to quash criminal cases No. 3104, 3105, 3543 to 3552, 3561 to 3570, 3617 to 3642 and 3661 to 3669 of 2001 (in all 51 criminal cases) pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar against the present petitioners filed by the second respondent in each case for offences punishable under section 500 and 501 and 502 read with section 114 of IPC. Incidentally, the first petitioner is the Editor of a daily newspaper published at Jamnagar namely "Nobat". Petitioner No.2 is a person who appears to have given an article for being published in the said newspaper. The said article was actually published in the said newspaper.
(2.) The facts can be drawn from the complaint filed by the second respondent before the aforesaid Court. There it has been mentioned that the second respondent in each case is an Advocate practising at Jamnagar and elsewhere. There is no dispute about the same. It is stated in the first complaint that the second petitioner is working as President of an Association for protecting the interest of consumers at Jamnagar. It is also stated in the complaint that the first petitioner had published an article in his newspaper "Nobat" on 10.7.2001. That the second petitioner was the author of the said article. It is also stated in the said article that some allegations have been made against the Advocates of Jamnagar in the said article. Some averments from the complaint/article are reproduced as follows: "The Advocates are not honest. Knowing that the case is false, yet many Advocates have been collecting fees and this fact is well known. That they collect the fees in advance and thereafter they do not work."
(3.) It is also stated in the complaint that the above article of the second petitioner was published by the first petitioner in his newspaper "Nobat" on 10.7.2001 in such a manner that it would attract notice of so many persons. That the said issue of "Nobat" was sold at various places by the first petitioner. It is also contended that the second respondent has been practising as Advocate since long and he has earned good reputation amongst his clients and friends. That on account of the above publication of the above article, the second respondent has been defamed. That the said article was written by the second petitioner and published by the first petitioner with a view to defame the second respondent and, therefore, both the petitioners are guilty of the aforesaid offence. Accordingly the said complaint was filed by the second respondent before the said court for the aforesaid offences. It seems that in the said complaint, the second respondent has given a list of witnesses which can be read from para 8 of the complaint as follows: i. Second respondent himself ii. All office bearers elected for the year 2001 A.D. in respect of Jamnagar Bar Association with Resolution passed by the said Association. iii. Office bearers of the Actual Court Practitioner Advocates' Association elected for 2001. iv. Office bearers of MACP Advocates' Association for the year 2001. v. Office bearers for the year 2001 in respect of Revenue Advocates' Association. vi. The Chairman & Secretary of the Bar Council of Gujarat. vii. The Chairman and Secretary of the Bar Council of India. viii. Chairpersons and Secretaries of all the State Bar Councils of India. ix. All members of Jamnagar Bar Association. ;