Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Sarjoo Prasad, J.
Deobrat Shastri
Versus
Rang Bahadur Singh
Criminal Revision No. 589 of 1950 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 07, 1950
DEFAMATION - PUBLICATION OF DEFAMATORY NEWS - GOOD FAITH - EXCEPTION TO DEFAMATION - TRANSFER OF CASE - GROUNDS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, editors of a daily newspaper, published news alleging that the government stockist of rice was delaying distribution to waste the rice and earn profit from its sale in the black market. The stockist filed a complaint against the petitioners for defamation under Sections 500 and 501 of the Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the publication was defamatory and that the petitioners had knowledge of its defamatory nature. However, the court also found that the petitioners acted in good faith and that they had a reasonable belief that the information they published was true. The court further held that the petitioners were not required to prove the truth of the publication and that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the publication did not fall within any of the exceptions to defamation under Section 499 of the Penal Code.
Issues: 1. Whether the publication was defamatory. 2. Whether the petitioners had knowledge of the defamatory nature of the publication. 3. Whether the petitioners acted in good faith. 4. Whether the petitioners were required to prove the truth of the publication. 5. Whether the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the publication did not fall within any of the exceptions to defamation under Section 499 of the Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the publication was defamatory because it imputed misconduct to the government stockist of rice and was calculated to harm its reputation. 2. The court held that the petitioners had knowledge of the defamatory nature of the publication because they were the editors of the newspaper in which it was published and they were presumed to have read and understood the contents of the publication. 3. The court held that the petitioners acted in good faith because they relied on information provided by their correspondent and they had no reason to believe that the information was false. 4. The court held that the petitioners were not required to prove the truth of the publication because the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the publication did not fall within any of the exceptions to defamation under Section 499 of the Penal Code. 5. The court held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the publication did not fall within any of the exceptions to defamation under Section 499 of the Penal Code because the exceptions provided a defense to the charge of defamation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioners' application and directed that the proceedings against them be quashed.
Sarjoo Prasad, J.
1. This is an application for quashing or, in the alternative, for transfer of a criminal prosecution pending against the petitioners. Petitioner No. 1, Deobrat Shastri, is said to be the Chief Editor of a daily Hindi newspaper called Navarastra. Petitioner no. 2, Sumangal Prakash, is the Editor of that paper which is printed and published at Patna. In the Dak Edition of that paper dated 30th November 1949, the following news was published:
"Begusarai Samachar--Tin Uazar man Chawal Barbad Karne ka Prayatan--Tin Mahine se Begusari ke kote ka karib tin Hazar man Arwa Chawal Begusarai men akar Para bai. Par ab tak uske bitaran ke liya adhikarion dwara koi prayatan nahi kia ja raha hai. Kaha jata hai ke ukta chawalke stockist Sthanlva Mulya Niyatran ke kramchariyon ko apne ptabhav men lakar ukta chawal ka bitran karne men janbujh kar deri karwarahe hain, jisme kuch aur samaya bit jane par ukta chawalko kharab ghosit kara kar use free sale men beche jane ki anumati prapat kar saken Smatan re be ki ukta chawal ke control dar karib 28 rupeya man hai tatha chor bazar dar katib chalis rupeya man hai."
The English literal rendering of the above quotation would be as follows:
Begusarai News.--A scheme to waste 3000 maunds of rice.--About 3000 maunds of arwa rice in respect of the quota of Begusarai has been lying in stock for about the last three months since its arrival, but up till now no arrangement has been made for its distribution through the authorities. It is said that the stockist of the said rice having brought under its influence the officers of the local price control department deliberately trying to delay the distribution of the said rice so that after a lapse of some further time, the said rice may be declared unfit and approval may be obtained for its free sale in the market. It may be remembered that the control price of the rice is about Rs. 28 a maund, while the black market price is about Rs. 40."
2. On the publication of this news, the opposite party, who is the manager of the Central Co-operative Bank, Begusarai, the Bank being the sole Government Stockist at the place, filed a petition of complaint before the Subclivisional Magistrate of Begusarai against the petitioners along with three other persons on 1st April 1950, and on the said complaint the Sub-divisional Magistrate issued summonses against the petitioners. It may be stated that the three other persons against whom summonses had been issued are (i) Malchand Agrawal, Chief Editor of another paper Vishwamitra, (2) Harishchandra Agrawal, also an Editor of the same paper Viehwamitra, this paper having also its head office at Patna, and (3) Jagat Narain Lal Agrawal, a resident of Begusarai who is alleged to be a correspondent of both these papers Navarastra and Vishwamitra.
3. Mr. Nageshwar Prasad who has appeared on behalf of the petitioners has urged various points in asking this Court to quash the proceedings. He contends that the petition of complaint has not been filed on behalf of "a person aggrieved", and therefore, no Court should take cognizance of an offence under Sections 500 and 501, falling under chap XXI, Penal Code, in the absence of such a complaint. Admittedly the Government stockist of rice in Beguearai is the Central Cooperative Bank of Beguaarai of which the complainant-opposite party is the manager. The affairs of the Bank are also under the supervision of a Board of Directors presided over by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of the place. Mr. Nageshwar Prasad, therefore, submits that if the the Bank stood aggrieved by the publication in question, then the complaint should have been either by the Board of Directors or by the President of the Board. The question of distribution of the rice stocked by the Bank as the Government stockist affects the persons who dictate the policy of the Bank, and therefore, it is primarily they who should have lodged a complaint, if at all, because they come within the definition of a pe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
