The judgment establishes that in cases of defamation, the accused must prove good faith, due care, and attention in making the alleged imputation, and the burden of proof for the accused to justify the publication under the exceptions to defamation is not as serious as the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

H B Prabhakara Sastry, J. - The petitioner herein who was tried in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., II Court, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court'), in C.C.No.21429/2001, for the offences punishable under Section 499 read with Sections 500 and 501 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'IPC'), was convicted for the said offences and sentenced accordingly vide its judgment dated 28.10.2005.

Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.387/2005, before the learned Prl.Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Session Judge's Court'), which also by its judgment dated 1.3.2010, while confirming the judgment of the trial Court, dismissed the appeal of the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred the present Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'Cr.P.C.').

2. The summary of the case of the complainant, which is Mangalore Catholic Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'M.C.C.Bank'), is that the two Articles published by the accused as an Editor and Publisher in his Kannada language news paper by name "Karavali Ale" and English daily news paper by name "Canara Times", on 11.9.2000 and 12.9.2000 respectively, have defamed the reputation of the complainant's Bank. This made the complainant- Bank to institute a complaint against the accused under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.

3. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, he was tried for the alleged offences where on behalf of the complainant, two witnesses were examined as PW-1 and PW-2 and documents at Exs.P-1 to P-7(a) were marked. From the accused side, the accused got himself examined as DW-1 and got examined two more witnesses as DW-2 and DW-3 and got produced and marked documents from Exs.D-1 to D-19.

4. After hearing both side, the trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 28.10.2005, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 499, 500 and 501 of IPC and sentenced him accordingly, which judgment is confirmed by the learned Session Judge's Court.

5. Trial Court and Session Judge's Courts records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.

6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel from both side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

7. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court.

8. After hearing, the point that arise for my consideration is :

" Whether the impugned judgments of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court and the Session Judge's Court suffers with any illegality or perversity warranting any interference at the hands of this Court?"

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in her arguments submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner/accused is the Editor and Publisher of two news papers and that he had published two articles as per Exs.P-1 and P-2, which articles the complainant has alleged that they are defaming the complainant. Learned counsel submitted that the contents of the articles are true and published in good faith for public good. As such, they fall under Ninth and Tenth Exception to Section 499 of IPC. In her support, she also relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harbhajan Singh -vs- State of Punjab and another, (1966) AIR SC 97 . Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the articles in question are the extract of a similar Article under Ex.D-1.

10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in his arguments submitted that there is concurrent finding of the trial Court, as well as the Session Judge's Court regarding the fact of the accused having committed the defamation. There is no perversity or illegality in the judgments. He also submitted that it is not proved that the articles in questio