S.Nos.                                                F.No. 14/536 &617/03-04-PCI

Shri Surender Kumar Sharma   
and Sanjay Kumar Kaushik
New Delhi.

Versus 

1.The Editor,
“Rohini Samarapan Times, 

2. “Delhi samarpan times”
New Delhi.

Complaint

            This complaint-dated 18.12.2003 has been jointly filed by S/Shri Surendra Sharma and Sanjay Kaushik of Delhi running ‘Neptune’ computer Educatin Institute against “Rohini Samarpan Times” and “Delhi Samarpan Times” neighbourhood weeklies published from Rohini, Delhi for publication of allegedly false and defamatory news items.  The names of the newspapers, date and caption of the news-items reads as follows:-
 

The complainants have not provided original clippings of the impugned news-items.  However, they have furnished photocopies of two impugned news-items dated 13-19/11/2003 and 11-17/12/2003 published in Rohini Samarpan Times and one photocopy of the impugned news item dated 16-31/10/2003 published in Delhi Samarpan Times. The complainant sent a legal noice dated 24.11.2003 through counsel for compensation of damage caused  due to alleged defamatory news items. Simultaneously the respondent was also asked to tender written apology and   remit a fee of Rs.2200/- as fee for legal notice but the respondent instead of tendering any apology  turned the  notice into headline of the article published in the issue dated 11-17 December, 2003 as per S.N.2 above in Rohini Samarapan Times to project to the readers that the complainant was trying to  suppress the voice of truth. The complainant,  however, sent a rejoinder on 26.2.2004 to the respondent and also asked for source of information.

          The impugned publications allege that in the name of Neptune Computer Education, fraud is being committed with the students due to which future of students of Rohini and Nazafgarh areas is in dark.  It has been further alleged that due to the irregularities, Nibbles Society has cancelled the validity of the Neptune.  It has been further alleged that the Director of the Neptune Institute, despite cancellation of its validity by Nibbles, has been collecting money from the students and thereby endangering their future.  The impugned news items further alleged that some students complained against the Institution to the Nazafgarh Police and the Directors of the Institute are absconding. 

          According the complainants, they are providing quality computer education at an affordable fee to the residents of Rohini and Yamuna Vihar by running the computer training centres in the name and style , Naptune Computer Education, under a registered society.  The complainants have submitted that they have only two branches at Rohini and Yamuna Vihar and there has never been any authorised branch in Nazafgarh.   When they came to know that somebody was using their name, they published the public notice regarding their society and their authorised branches in Delhi in Punjab Kesari issue dated 4.12.2003 and they issued a legal notice to the person but the respondents have dragged their name in relation to  Nazafgarh branch in the impugned reports with malicious  intention  to defame them. They have further stated that right from the day they started their computer education centres in the name of Naptune, they have neither collected any amount in the name of Nibbles nor issued any certificate in the name of Nibbles but the respondents in their articles referred to them as fraudsters who had allegedly  cheated a lot of people. 

          The complainants drew the attention of both the respondent-newspapers towards the impugned publications on 26.2.2004 but there was no response.  The complainants requested the Council to take necessary action in the matter.

          Show-cause notices to the Editor, Rohini Samarpan Times Hindi weekly and Editor, Delhi Samarpan Times, Hindi fortnightly were issued on 22.4.2004. 

Written Statement of Delhi Samarpan Times

          Shri Rajender Kharra, Editor, Delhi Samarpan Times in his written statement dated 11.5.2004 has submitted that the news-items have been published in public interest and without any ill will.  The respondent further submitted that the students of the Neptune had made written complaints and the newspaper published the report only after it had examined these documents and also the oral complaints against the Institute.  The respondent alleged that the complainant was denying having any branch in Nazafgarh area but as per the prospectus, the name and address of the Nazafgarh branch was given in the prospectus.  The respondent editor maintained that the complainant’s institute was playing fraud with the future of the students.  The respondent asserted that the newspaper is in the possession of the audio-video recording on the discussion with the students and the same shall be produced before the Council at the time of hearing.

          The respondent editor in his subsequent letters dated 2.8.2004 and 28.9.2004 reiterated his submission and produced more documents in support of his side of version.

No W/s  of Rohini Samarpan Times

          The Editor, Rohini Samarpan Times published from the same address did not file written statement despite reminder. 

Complainant’s Counter Comments

          The complainant in his counter comments dated 17.6.2004 has submitted that the documents sent by the respondent to the Council constitute a cognizable offence u/s 120-B of Indian Penal Code.  He has requested the Council to cancel the registration number of the newspaper.  The complainants have alleged that the respondent has produced false receipts in respect of Najafgarh branch of Neptune.  No such stationery was issued by the Institution as produced by the respondents.  The complainant further alleged that the photocopy of the diploma in respect of Nibbles was also false and these diplomas and certificates were issued by one Santosh Gupta.  There was no reference about any complaint against the complainant’s Institute by any of the students.

          The complainant requested the Council to take action against the respondent and send this complaint to the Delhi Police and cancel the registration of the newspaper.   

Appearance before the Inquiry Committee

          The matter was taken up for hearing before the Inquiry Committee at New Delhi on 28.4.2005. The complainant S/Shri Surender Kumar Sharma and Sanjay Kumar Kaushik appeared before the Committee while Shri Rajender Kharra, represented the respondent Delhi Samarapan Times while there was no appearance on behalf of the Rohini Samarapan Times.

Proceedings before the Inquiry Committee  

          The complainant in his oral arguments contended that Naptune computer Education (NEC) had only two branches at Rohini and Yamuna Vihar only. The respondent newspapers, with a view to defame the institution, had wrongly published that they had a branch at Najafgarh also. On coming to know that some one was using their name, they personally visited the Najafgarh office but found it locked. Thereafter a notice was published in Punjab Kesari about their two branches and they also issued a notice to the person who was unauthorisedly running a branch at Najafgarh. From the day they separated from Nibbles and started their institution in the name of Naptune, they have collected any money in the name of Nibbles. The statement that the Director of Naptune had absconded was highly damaging. He added that their rejoinder to the impugned news reports was not published by the respondents.

          The representative of the respondent newspapers denying the allegations of the complainant argued that about 25 students had complained to the police that fake certificates were issued to then by NEC. NEC was collecting money in the name of Nibbles. He also produced the prospectus issued by the Najafgarh branch in support of his contention that this branch was also affiliated to the Neptune Computer Education Institute. The complainant countered this evidence by pointing out that the printing carrying the name Nazafgarh as a branch different from the rest of the printing style. The respondent denied having received any denial and but agreed to publish the denial of the complainants to fact “that the NEC had no branch at Najafgarh and they had no connection with the Najafgarh Centre”. 

Recommendations of the Inquiry Committee

          The Committee considered the material available on record and the oral arguments advanced before it on behalf of the parties. The Committee noted that in response to the advise of the Committee, the respondent had agreed to publish the rejoinder. Therefore, the Committee felt that while the respondents Rohini Samarapan Times and Delhi Samarapan Times should have been more careful in reporting the facts, involving the educational institute, in view of the readiness of the respondents to publish the denial of the complainants, which they should do within 15 days of the receipt of the Council’s adjudication, the Council may allow the matter to rest. 

Decision of the Council 

The Press Council, on consideration of the records of the case and report of the Inquiry Committee accepts the reasons, findings and the recommendation of the Committee and decides accordingly.