A publication is defamatory if it harms an individual's reputation, and the burden shifts to the publisher to prove it was made in the public interest.

JUDGMENT :

S. Rachaiah, J.

1. The appellant being the complainant, has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.09.2013 in C.C.No.1512/2007 on the file of the JMFC- III at Mysuru, wherein the respondent was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).

2. The ranking of the parties in the Trial Court, henceforth, will be considered as per their rankings in the Court for convenience.

Brief facts of the case :

3. The appellant is a police officer and he was working as the Circle Inspector of Police at K.R. Police Station at Mysuru. He was entrusted the work of executing the warrant against the respondent in C.C.No.265/2003. The appellant, as a part of his official duty, arrested the respondent / accused and sent him to the concerned Court. The respondent, being annoyed about his arrest, intended to take vengeance against the appellant / complainant, had published defamatory articles in the Eveninger namely “HELLO MYSORE” on 03.08.2004. Subsequently, again, he made certain allegations against the appellant, which made him to suffer in the eyes of family members and relatives and also public at large. Therefore, a complaint came to be registered against the accused before the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

4. To prove the case of the complainant, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined other three witnesses as PWs.2 to 4 and got marked seven documents as Exhibits P1 to P7. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded the acquittal.

5. Heard Sri Chethan B and Sri Syed Amjad, learned counsels for the appellant and Sri Shankarappa, learned counsel for the respondent.

6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is perverse, illegal and erroneous. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside as it is against to the evidence on record.

7. It is further submitted that the manner in which the Trial Court arrived at a conclusion is erroneous for the reason that, the Trial Court assessed the evidence in such a manner that the details of the persons / public spoken about the defamatory words were not forthcoming in the evidence. The Trial Court ought to have considered the publication itself. Instead of considering the publication, asking the individual who got hurt by such publications is erroneous and untenable.

8. It is further submitted that the respondent made reckless and baseless allegations, which are considered as defamatory. However, the Trial Court failed to take note of the said facts and also failed to appreciate the evidence properly, resulted in passing the impugned judgment, which is liable to be set aside. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal.

9. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent, vehemently, justified the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and further, he submitted that the publications published in the magazine owned by the respondent did not contain any defamatory words. In fact, it is the message given to the erring officer to set right the system, in the interest of public.

10. It is further submitted that, when the statement is made which causes public good, that cannot be considered as defamatory sentence. Therefore, the ingredients of the provisions are not applicable to the given set of facts and circumstances. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the respondent prays to dismiss the petition.

11