originator of the libel or is merely repeating it. Tweeter a micro blogging and social network website, is used for spreading of messages. The Tweets so made on this platform are read by public on Internet who visit the platform of the creator of the Tweet. The platform, like Tweeter, can be used for sharing ideas and dissemination of thoughts. Whenever the user of this platform after reading the Tweet click on the 're-tweet' button of any user, the Tweet reaches the followers of the 're-tweeting' user. Thus, it reaches the new viewers for whom it may amount to publication. Retweeting, therefore, would amount to re-publication so far as the followers of retweeting user are concerned. 22. The question in the present revision petition is whether the revisionist had re-tweeted the contents of the video. The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist has not re-tweeted the video. However, the copy of the re- tweet placed on record shows that the link of video was also mentioned in the re-tweet. The re-tweet by the revisionist shows that he has referred to the link i.e. "youtu.be/BsIKjxaP4Ik" on which the video containing the defamatory contents can be watched. He has further mentioned 'Share and RT'. Thus, it appears that the revisionist had re-tweeted the entire tweet along with mentioning the link on which the video can be watched by his followers on his tweeter account. 23. Learned counsel for revisionist argued that there was no intention on the part of the revisionist to cause any defamation. He referred to the judgment titled as Standard Chartered Bank vs Vinay Kumar Sood, CrL M. C. No.3828/2007 decided on 06.02.2009. He argued that the revisionist does not know complainant therefore, there cannot be any intention on his part to cause harm to the reputation of complainant. In the judgment on which learned counsel has relied, it was observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the intention to cause harm is most essential sine qua non for the offence under Section 499 IPC. It was held that the offence under Section 500 IPC requires blame worthy mind and is not a statutory offence requiring no mensrea. However, it may be noted here that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the Standard Chartered Bank's case (supra) was dealing with a car in which a limited company was arrayed as an accused for the offence under Section 500 IPC. Therefore, the court dealt with the issue of 'mensrea' and held that a company cannot in any case be held guilty Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:05.02.2024 16:25:50 CRL.M.C. 6347/2019 Page 16 of 50