Court quashes case against Viacom 18 over Borivali man’s photo shown in tribute to dead celebs

The complaint was filed by Somak Ashish Mukherjee, a resident of Borivali East, over a programme aired live on March 31, 2012 and telecast again on April 3, 2012

MUMBAI: More than 13 years after a Borivali man complained that his photograph was shown on TV among those of dead Bollywood celebrities, a sessions court on Friday quashed the criminal defamation case against Viacom 18 Media Pvt Ltd, which owns Colours TV, holding that the complaint lacked any intent to harm his reputation.

Court quashes case against Viacom 18 over Borivali man’s photo shown in tribute to dead celebs

The complaint was filed by Somak Ashish Mukherjee, a resident of Borivali East, over a programme aired live on March 31, 2012 and telecast again on April 3, 2012. In it, songs were sung in tribute to several late Bollywood personalities, whose photographs were displayed on stage. Mukherjee said his photograph was among them, though he has no association with the film industry.

He told the Andheri metropolitan magistrate’s court that after the broadcast, relatives and well-wishers called to ask about his health, neighbours began looking at him suspiciously, and children near his home started calling him “bhoot uncle”.

He sought to prosecute the broadcaster and others connected with the programme for criminal defamation. On July 27, 2013, the magistrate issued process against the accused he had named, prompting Viacom 18 to approach the sessions court.

Viacom 18 argued it was a case of mistaken identity, that the appearance of Mukherjee’s photo was a coincidence, and that it had already tendered an apology for the mistake. Since there was no intention, it further contended, the case fell under the “bona fide mistake” exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and the complaint should be struck down.

Additional sessions Judge KD Jadhav accepted this, saying intention to harm reputation is an important ingredient of the offence under Section 500 of the IPC, and the complaint lacked it.

The court also noted that Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires a magistrate to examine the complainant on oath and record its substance in writing. In this case, the verification statement was “readymade”, typed and then produced before the magistrate, so the verification was contrary to legal requirements.