'Glaring Case' Where Magistrate Acted Without Jurisdiction: Bombay HC Quashes Summons Issued To Lokmat Media's Director Devendra Darda

While noting that the impugned order ought to have been challenged in a Revision Application before the Sessions Court, Justice Valmiki Menezes remarked that it was a “glaring case” where the Magistrate issued summons without any jurisdiction.

The Court observed “However, I find that this is a glaring enough case, where the Magistrate has proceeded totally without jurisdiction, to exercise supervisory powers vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to right the injustice caused to the Petitioner. Further, this Court, notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioner may have recourse to the remedy of revision, is vested with inherent powers under Sections 482 and 483 of the Cr.P.C. which may be exercised to secure the ends of justice.”

The Magistrate issued summons to Darda on a complaint instituted by the Labour Commissioner alleging that Dara committed an offence under Section 17(a) of the Working Journalist and other Newspaper Employee (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. Section 17(a) provides that every employer in relation to a newspaper establishment shall prepare and maintain such registers, records and muster rolls. 

Darda submitted that the Magistrate's order was without any jurisdiction. He contended that the offence alleged in the complaint under Section 17(a) of the Act, which carries a punishment of a fine of Rs. 200 for first offence, is required to be filed within a period of 6 months in view of Section 468(2) CrPC. He thus argued that the complaint was barred was limitation.

Darda further contended that the offences have been alleged primarily against Lokmat Media Private Limited and that the complaint did not contain necessary statements against him to attract vicarious liability of the Director under the Act. He also contended that the company was not arrayed as accused in the complaint.

The High Court noted that the complaint did not contain any allegations concerning the role of Darda in the offence. It also noted that the company/ Lokmat Media was not made as an accused to the complaint and only the Director/Darda was named in the complaint. It stated that the complainant did not make any statement about the role played by the Director of the company.

“There is no statement made in the complaint, alleging the role played by the Director of the company and how he was responsible for the acts of the Company. Further the Company has not been impleaded as an Accused. In the absence of such averments, which are mandatory and required to be made in the complaint, the order of issuance of the process is without jurisdiction.”

The Court further referred to Section 18 of the Journalist Act, which bars a Court from taking cognizance of the offence under said Act where the complaint is filed beyond the period of 6 months from the offence alleged to have been committed.

It noted that the offence have been alleged to have taken place on 17.12.2015 and thus barred under Section 18. It also noted that even otherwise the complaint was barred under Section 468 of Cr.PC as Section 17 only attracts a fine of Rs. 200 or Rs. 500.

The Court thus quashed the impugned order.

Case title: Devendra Darda vs. State of Goa & Anr (Criminal Writ Petition No. 115 Of 2018 With Criminal Writ Petition No. 116 Of 2018)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 88