A sessions court on Thursday acquitted Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sanjay Raut in a defamation case filed by Medha Somaiya, the wife of BJP leader Kirit Somaiya, overturning an earlier conviction delivered by a magistrate’s court. Additional Sessions Judge Mahesh Jadhav ruled that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the allegedly defamatory news article had been published on Raut’s instructions. The court observed that, in his capacity as executive editor of the newspaper Saamana, Raut could not be held legally responsible for every item published in the publication.
The case originated from allegations made by Medha Somaiya, who claimed that Raut had levelled baseless and defamatory accusations against her and her husband in the media, linking them to an alleged Rs 100 crore scam related to the construction of public toilets under the Mira-Bhayander Municipal Corporation. In September last year, a judicial magistrate had found Raut guilty of defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to 15 days in jail and imposing a fine of Rs 25,000. Raut subsequently challenged the ruling before the sessions court that handles cases involving MPs and MLAs.
During the appeal proceedings, Raut’s counsel argued that the articles in question did not defame the complainant and that the publication process involved editorial verification independent of Raut. On the other hand, the complainant’s legal team contended that an official enquiry had found no evidence of the alleged scam, noting that the public toilet project was valued at Rs 22 crore and therefore could not involve a Rs 100 crore irregularity as claimed.
In its judgment, the sessions court relied significantly on the testimony of Saamana editor Rajesh Powale, who appeared as a defence witness. The court held that Powale had edited and verified the news article based on documents including a letter from MLA Pratap Sarnaik and a report submitted by the Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation commissioner. The judge noted that these aspects were not adequately considered by the magistrate’s court, which had concluded that Raut was directly responsible for publication.
The court further observed that, under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, legal liability for published material primarily rests with the editor rather than the executive editor. Citing a Supreme Court ruling, Judge Jadhav clarified that Raut’s designation did not automatically make him accountable for all published content. The sessions court also found that the complainant failed to prove Raut’s involvement in similar articles published in other media outlets.
Addressing claims that the article had damaged Medha Somaiya’s reputation, the court pointed out that some of the complainant’s own witnesses admitted during cross-examination that their perception of her had not changed despite the allegations. This weakened the argument that the publication had caused reputational harm. The judge also criticised the magistrate’s reliance on Raut’s statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasising that such statements are meant only to allow an accused person to explain circumstances and cannot form the sole basis for conviction.
Concluding that the prosecution had failed to independently establish Raut’s liability, the sessions court ruled that the lower court’s judgment required interference and accordingly set aside the conviction, acquitting the Shiv Sena (UBT) leader of all charges in the defamation case.
