In a private complaint filed by Adani Enterprises Limited (Adani) before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mansa, under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), alleging that the accused respondent had committed criminal defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) Justice Damini Dixit held the accused to be guilty of an offence under Section 499 of the IPC.
Adani asserted that its reputation and goodwill were valuable commercial assets and that any false or malicious imputations could cause serious harm to its standing among investors, shareholders, and financial institutions. The complaint alleged that the accused published a series of tweets between October 2020 and July 2021 that were scandalous and misleading. It was also alleged that the accused had circulated defamatory articles on a website with the domain name www.adaniwatch.org.
Adani contended that the tweets were intended to portray the Adani Group as a beneficiary of undue political patronage, as manipulators of the law, and as engaged in unethical, illegal, or improper business practices. It was submitted that several tweets alleged that environmental laws were amended or diluted to facilitate Adani-backed projects and that public assets had been transferred to Adani entities through the misuse of governmental agencies.
It was also asserted by Adani that the articles published on the said website contained distorted and manipulated narratives regarding foreign portfolio investments, alleged regulatory scrutiny, and purported connections with fugitives.
Upon presentation of the complaint, the Court proceeded to examine the same and ordered an inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC to ascertain whether sufficient ground existed to proceed against the accused. After considering the evidence adduced during the inquiry, the Court was satisfied that a prima facie case for defamation was made and thus, ordered to file a criminal complaint against the accused.
Regarding the maintainability of the present complaint, the Court took note of Section 199 of the CrPC and said that the expression ‘person aggrieved’ must be understood in light of the substantive offence of defamation. It was found that the complainant company was the flagship and principal entity of what is commonly known as the ‘Adani Group’. The Court held that a company, being a juristic person, necessarily acts through authorised representatives, and once it is shown that the complaint is instituted by a duly authorised person, the requirement of Section 199 stands satisfied.
In reference to the issue of territorial jurisdiction, the Court stated that in view of Section 179 of CrPC, it was satisfied that the alleged consequence of the offence occurred within Mansa since the authorised person came across the tweets while he was in Mansa. Further, the Court stated that there was no material to indicate that the electronic evidence was inherently unreliable or incapable of being acted upon, and thus, the Court was satisfied that the evidence had been brought on record in substantial compliance with the requirement of law.
The Court stated that, although the tweets and articles pertained to different events and were published over time, they consistently targeted Adani and its group. It was found that, in the present case, the publications disclosed continuity of purpose and could not be said to be wholly independent or unrelated. It was also stated that the evidence showed that if the conduct attributed to Adani by the publication were believed, it would lower its moral and commercial standing.
Further, the Court stated that reputation is not limited to personal honour or moral standing alone, but extends to commercial credibility, integrity, and trustworthiness in the eyes of the investors, regulators, business partners, and general public in the case of a company. It was said that the distinction between permissible criticism and defamatory imputation is subtle but crucial.
It was stated that the probability of reputational harm is significantly amplified since publications made through social media have the potential to reach a vast and diverse audience. Considering the overall impression, the Court held that the publications could not be characterised as mere opinion or fair criticism and that they contained imputations of a nature that squarely attracts Section 499 of IPC.
Thus, the Court held the accused to be guilty of the offence under Section 499, punishable under Section 500 of the IPC.
Addressing the question of sentence hearing, the Court stated that although the statute provides a maximum ceiling of two years, the gravity of the conduct required a sentence that transcended mere nominal punishment to serve as a meaningful deterrent. Thus, the accused was sentenced to simple imprisonment for 1 year, with a fine of Rs. 5000/-, under Section 255(2) of the CrPC.
Appearances:
For Complainant – Mr. S.V. Thakkar, Ms. K.P. Raichura
For Accused – Mr. P.B. Rupala, Mr. Vedant Rajyaguru
