DR. (MRS.) RASHMI SANGHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

                     Cri. Application No.1082 of 2018 and Cri. Application No.1083 of 2018..doc

Ajay

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1082 OF 2018

       Dr. (Mrs.) Rashmi Sanghi                                    .. Applicant
             Versus
       State of Maharashtra and Another                            .. Respondents
                                             WITH
                    CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1083 OF 2018

       Dr. Shri Gopal Kabra                            .. Applicant
             Versus
       State of Maharashtra and Another                .. Respondents
                                  ....................
        Mr Ashok Mundargi, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Maulik Nanavati
          and Ms. Paavani Chadha, Advocates for Applicants.
        Mr. Brijesh Shukla, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in both the
         Applications
        Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent – State in both
         the Applications.
                                        ......…...........
                                       CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                       DATE         : AUGUST 18, 2026.

       P.C.:

       1.       Heard     Mr.     Mundargi,        learned      Senior      Advocate       for

       Applicants, Mr. Shukla, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2 and Mr.

       Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent – State.


       2.       This is a group of two (2) Criminal Applications, one

       Application is filed by Dr. (Mrs.) Rashmi Sanghi and second

       Application is filed by Dr. Shri Gopal Kabra. Both Applications are

       decided together due to commonality of issues and facts arising out of

       the views expressed by both the doctors on a T.V. program wherein Dr.

                                                                                       1 of 11
              Cri. Application No.1082 of 2018 and Cri. Application No.1083 of 2018..doc


Rashmi Sanghi spoke for 40 seconds whereas Dr. Shri Gopal Kabra

spoke for 3-4 minutes while answering the questions posed by the

anchor of a public talk show namely “Satyamev Jayate” aired on

Doordarshan and Star TV. Both Applicants are doctors having

substantial research and experience behind them in their respective

fields of study and research.


3.        Both Applications are filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of Complaint Case No.521/SS

of 2015 and Complaint Case No.522/SS of 2015 pending before the

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai

for offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 and order dated 03.10.2016 separately in both matters passed by

the said Magistrate.


4.        As argued by Mr. Mundargi, learned Senior Advocate on

behalf of Applicants, it is seen that Applicant - Dr. Rashmi Sanghi

being a doctor published a research paper titled “Organochlorine and

Organophosphorus pesticide residues in breast milk from Bhopal,

Madhya Pradesh, India” in “Journal of Human and Experimental

Toxicology” in February 2003. According to Applicant - Dr. Rashmi

Sanghi similar studies were carried out by several research scholars

both domestically and internationally stating presence of higher than

permissible quantities of contaminants in the breast milk. According to



                                                                                2 of 11
              Cri. Application No.1082 of 2018 and Cri. Application No.1083 of 2018..doc


Applicant - Dr. Rashmi Sanghi these studies helped to understand the

nature and extent of the problem of contamination of human milk with

environmental and occupational chemicals, excluding drugs and

discussed factors influencing the levels of contaminants in breast milk.


5.        Mr. Mundargi would submit that Applicant – Dr. Shri Gopal

Kabra has been involved in extensive study both by himself and under

his guidance and supervision on incidence of still births and congenital

anomalies wherein in research it is elucidated that any environmental

teratogenic factor is effective in producing brain defects must be

operative during the first 4th or the 5th week of pregnancy. He would

submit that his research stated that a teratogenic environmental poison

is bound to affect virtually the entire population of the city of Jaipur

where it was carried out which must have passed on through food,

water or atmosphere. Next, he would submit that several other

researches have also been conducted on the subject of presence of high

residue of pesticides in grains in India and the harmful effect of such

high percentage of contamination in food items being consumed by the

population of humans and animals. He would submit that Applicant –

Dr. Shri Gopal Kabra has authored several books on medical subjects

and written various research papers which have been further published

in renowned journals.




                                                                                3 of 11
              Cri. Application No.1082 of 2018 and Cri. Application No.1083 of 2018..doc


6.        In this above background, both the Applicants were

approached by producers of the T.V. show program “Satyamev Jayate”

anchored by film actor Aamir Khan and aired on Doordarshan (state

owned channel) and other T.V. channels like Star TV, etc. Many other

public figures were also invited. Applicants were informed that topic of

discussion on the episode for which they were invited i.e. “Toxic Food -

Poison in our Plate”. Applicant - Dr. Rashmi Sanghi was persuaded to

speak about her research paper of 2003 since she had at the then time

become a mother. Applicant - Dr. Rashmi Sanghi appeared on the T.V.

show program and spoke for about 40 seconds while answering the

questions put to her by the anchor. Dr. Shri Gopal Kabra spoke for

about 3-4 minutes.


7.        It is seen that there were other experts / public figure

including owner of the largest pesticide manufacturing company in

India also on the said program who voiced and shared their opinion on

use of pesticides within limits, lack of regulations of use of pesticides,

possibility of alternative modes of farming (organic farming) and non-

pesticide management methods, reverse mechanism process of use of

pesticides and cost effectiveness of non-pesticide management method.


8.        Mr. Mundargi, learned Senior Advocate has taken me

through the transcripts of the answers given by the Applicants. I have

perused both the transcripts appended to the respective Applications



                                                                                4 of 11
               Cri. Application No.1082 of 2018 and Cri. Application No.1083 of 2018..doc


with the able assistance of Mr. Mundargi, learned Senior Advocate and

Mr. Shukla, learned Advocate for original Complainant i.e. Respondent

No.2 and Mr. Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent – State.

Submissions made by learned Senior Advocate and Advocates at the

bar have received due consideration of the Court.


9.       Before, I advert to adjudicate the case on merits, the

Complainant is Crop Care Federation of India Limited which is a non-

profit organization (NGO) whose members are manufactures and

marketers of pesticides and insecticides. The T.V. show program was

telecast on 24.06.2012. The private complainant took an objection on

views aired on the T.V. show program about toxic food poison and a

statement about fruits and vegetables having abnormally high levels of

pesticide residues thereby causing “folic acid” deficiency in pregnant

mothers which leads to causing of skull deformities in new born babies

and filed the complaint in March, 2015.


10.      PER      CONTRA,         Mr.     Shukla,       learned      Advocate        for

Complainant has vehemently argued that if the transcripts of the

interview and views expressed in the interview are seen it would be

equivalent to a false, convoluted and malicious claim by Applicants

made before the public at large directly holding use of pesticides by

farmers for their crops as harmful. According to the Complainant the

Applicants remarks on the T.V. show program resulted in scaring the



                                                                                 5 of 11
              Cri. Application No.1082 of 2018 and Cri. Application No.1083 of 2018..doc


public at large at the behest of some unscrupulous interested parties

and for subsequent personal gain. He would persuade me to read the

transcripts and determine the answers given by Applicants on the basis

of the photographs displayed during the program to understand the

underlying meaning and to hold against Applicants having stated that

use of pesticides is the real cause for lack of “folic acid” in pregnant

mothers eventually resulting in congenital anomalies and defects of the

new borns in many cases.


11.       However on perusing the transcripts of the T.V. show

interview, I am of the clear opinion that the context of the statements

made by the Applicants was only to spread awareness about grossly

visible and mostly fatal malformation and high incidence of defects

noticed through studies which were conducted. In my opinion, the

entire case filed by the Complainant virtually turns on its heads in view

of the fact that admittedly both Applicants have not made any mention

whether direct or indirect about the use of any particular pesticide or

insecticide as being teratogenic or being responsible for any birth

defects or deformities, neither have they mentioned or taken the name

of any manufacturer or producer of insecticides or pesticides in a

negative or defamatory manner which would amount to casting

insinuation or imputation on any of the members of the Complainant/

NGO/ Organization or for that matter any person / manufacturer

concerning the insecticide / pesticide industry.

                                                                                6 of 11
              Cri. Application No.1082 of 2018 and Cri. Application No.1083 of 2018..doc


12.      Infact, what I find is that the statements made were generic

and not specific without imputing any aspersion altogether rather it is

seen that both the Applicants before Court are research scholars and

the answers given by them when seen and considered are given in

general on the basis of contemporaneous studies and analysis carried

out by they themselves. On overall consideration of the facts in the

present case it is seen that the discussion on the T.V. show program

was to spread awareness about the side effects and ill effects of

excessive (emphasis underlined) use of pesticides and insecticides or

other teratogenic material on human health and its impact on

environment and ecology and to discuss and deliberate on alternate

methods of farming which are less harmful.


13.      I do not find a singular intentional or malicious or false

statement made by the Applicants while answering the questions so as

to indict either a particular pesticides or insecticides and/or the

manufacturers and marketers of pesticide and insecticide or concerning

any member of the Complainant.


14.      It is seen that the allegations made in the complaint have

been taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate as if they are

directed against a particular pesticide or insecticide or their

manufacturer and / or marketer. However once that is absent the

essential ingredients of Section 499 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 to



                                                                                7 of 11
               Cri. Application No.1082 of 2018 and Cri. Application No.1083 of 2018..doc


constitute the offense of defamation cannot disclose satisfaction of the

said ingredients at all.


15.       The statements made by both Applicants are substantiated by

their own research papers and well documented reports of DST and

Voluntary Health Association of India. It is seen that there is no

attempt whatsoever made in the answers given by both Applicants to

blame or tarnish the reputation of any manufacturer or marketer of

insecticide and / or pesticide. What is highlighted in the answers given

is only that the excessive use of pesticide and its harmful effects and

such opinion is in my opinion in the public interest. Hence, in that view

of the matter it cannot and does not amount to defamation at all.


16.       Once, I arrive at this conclusion prima facie on the basis of

reading the interview transcripts and answers given by both Applicants

to the anchor of the T.V. show program, I need not labour any further.

Scrutiny of the evidence brought on record is so crucial in such

matters, since criminal law cannot be set into motion by merely relying

upon allegations made in the complaint. What is further intriguing is

that the T.V. show interview was aired on 24.06.2012 and the

complaint has been filed in March 2015 i.e. after a delay of almost

three (3) years which prima facie speaks volumes on the part of

complainant.




                                                                                 8 of 11
               Cri. Application No.1082 of 2018 and Cri. Application No.1083 of 2018..doc


17.       The order dated 03.10.2016 issuing process, copy of which is

appended at page No.45 of Application of Criminal Application

No.1083 of 2018 is as innocuous as possible. It is sans reasons and

without application of whatsoever. It merely records that the remarks

are highly defamatory to the manufacturers and marketers of India and

considering this position process is issued. This reason in itself reflects

complete non-application of mind by the learned Magistrate and hence

such an order can never be sustained and countenanced at all.


18.       Mr. Mundargi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf

of Applicants has also drawn my attention to the order dated

22.04.2013 passed by the Broadcasting Content Complaints Council

with regard to the same cause of action and same T.V. show program.

He would submit that pesticide manufacturers and Pesticide

Manufacturers and Formulators Association of India (PMFAI) filed a

similar complaint on 24.06.2012 immediately with the Prime Minister’s

Office with regard to the same T.V. show program which aired views

about use of pesticides in agriculture. Copy of this order is appended

below Exhibit “C” at page No. 78. He would submit that the PMFAI

urged that necessary steps be taken to stop the media and activists

from spreading wrong, unscientific and misleading information to the

public and farmers in particular. He would submit that the said Council

viewed the T.V. show program and duly considered all submissions

made by the parties and documents produced by them in detail and

                                                                                 9 of 11
               Cri. Application No.1082 of 2018 and Cri. Application No.1083 of 2018..doc


held in its above order that nothing objectionable was found in the

program and at the highest the program was critical of use of

pesticides particularly excessive use of pesticides and however the said

issue was dealt with proper sensitivity and maturity and it also held

that the owner of one of the biggest Pesticide Manufacturer Company

in India appeared on the T.V. show program alongwith live audience,

several    other   doctors,    experts,      representatives       of    NGOs       and

homemakers and he was given a fairly sufficient and reasonably long

time to explain the use of pesticides also. He would submit that the

Council was of the considered opinion concluding that the complaint of

PMFAI was without any merit as it did not find any violation of any

guideline of IBF’s Self-Regulatory Guidelines whatsoever.


19.        After going through the transcripts of both Applicants and

the views expressed by them I am unable to accept the submissions

made by Mr. Shukla, learned Advocate for the original Complainant.


20.        Hence, in view of my above observations and findings, both

Criminal     Applications       for     Quashing         of     Complaint         Case

No.521/SS/2015 and Complaint Case No.522/SS/2015 under Section

500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deserve to be allowed. Both

Complaint Cases are quashed and both Criminal Applications are

allowed in terms of their respective prayer clauses “a” which read

thus:-



                                                                               10 of 11
                               Cri. Application No.1082 of 2018 and Cri. Application No.1083 of 2018..doc


       Prayer Clause “a” in Criminal Application No.1082 of 2018:-

             “(a)              To pass an order quashing the Criminal Complaint being C.C. No.521/SS
                               of 2015 and order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the Additional
                               Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai of taking
                               cognizance of the impugned complaint for offence punishable under
                               Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code;”
       Prayer Clause “a” in Criminal Application No.1083 of 2018:-

             “(a)              To pass an order quashing the Criminal Complaint being C.C. No.522/SS
                               of 2015 and order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the Additional
                               Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai of taking
                               cognizance of the impugned complaint for offence punishable under
                               Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code;”


       21.             Resultantly, both Criminal Applications are allowed and

       disposed in the above terms.



                                                                  [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

Ajay              Digitally
                  signed by
                  RAVINDRA
       RAVINDRA   MOHAN
       MOHAN      AMBERKAR
       AMBERKAR   Date:
                  2026.08.18
                  11:34:22
                  +0530




                                                                                               11 of 11