the person charged with defamation. At the initial stage, the Court has to look into the complaint and the statement/evidence of the complainant and has to believe him. The Court has to see whether if the impugned material is prima facie defamatory or not and whether the Court has sufficient grounds to proceed with the case. The video referred above are if seen in the entire context of the things and evidence of the complainant seems to be defamatory if they do not fall within any of the statutory defences prescribed by law itself as well as the other legal requirements. The entire burden will be on respondent to plead and prove the defence on which he may rely upon. 16. In defamation cases, one of the test is whether under the circumstances in which the writing was published reasonable men to whom the publication was made would' be likely to understand it in a defamatory sense. Much also depends on the intention of the maker of the statement which is a subject of trial. 17. Therefore, the aforesaid discussions shows that allegations in the video are prima facie defamatory and refers to complainant Mr. Vikas Sankrityayan @ Vikas Pandey making him an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 199 Cr.P.C. The inquiry as contemplated under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been duly conducted by examining the complainant and his witnesses to arrive at the conclusion for this stage of the case. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion there exists sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondent Arvind Kejriwal under section 500 IPC. Accordingly, Sh. Arvind Kejriwal is summoned for commission of offence of defamation under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.” 8. Learned Sessions Court, while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner where the order of summoning was challenged, had passed the following order dated 30.10.2019: “21. It is not in dispute that republication of libel is a new libel which was so held in the case of Harbhajan Singh vs State of Punjab, 1961 Cri. Law Journal 710. It was further observed therein that the publisher of the libel is strictly responsible, irrespective of the fact whether he is the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:05.02.2024 16:25:50 CRL.M.C. 6347/2019 Page 15 of 50