The main legal point established is that the publication of defamatory content must be in good faith and based on due care and attention, and reckless comments are to be avoided.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

1. The Petitioner Prof. Ram Prakash seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 1st June 2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-04 (South) [MM], Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi, acquitting the Respondents of the offences under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondents raised a preliminary objection that the criminal leave petition was time-barred and that an application for condonation of delay ought to have been filed.

3. It is seen that the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court is dated 1st June 2012. The Petitioner filed a criminal revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. By an order dated 29th September 2012, the learned ASJ dismissed the criminal revision petition on the ground of maintainability. Within thirty days of obtaining a certified the copy of the said order, the present criminal leave petition was filed on 30th October 2012. The Court, in these circumstances, does not find any merit in the submission of learned counsel for the Respondent as regards the limitation.

4. Having heard the Petitioner in person and learned counsel for Respondents, the Court is of the view that there are sufficient grounds made out for grant of leave to appeal.

5. The petition is allowed and the case is directed to be registered as a regular criminal appeal. Criminal A. No. of 2014 (to be registered and numbered by the Registry).

The complaint

6. The Appellant Prof. Ram Prakash filed a complaint on 27th November 2008 against Respondent No. 1, Assistant Editor, Jan Vikas and Respondent No. 2, Editor, Jan Vikas under Sections 500 and 501 IPC stating that the Respondents had knowingly published a defamatory news item titled Adaalat ke aadesh par bhi Nagar Nigam Maun (Despite Court Orders, Municipal Corporation Silent) in the 3rd to 9th December 2007 issue of Jan Vikas, a Hindi newspaper published in South Delhi.

7. The Appellant, inter alia, stated in his complaint that he was the owner of the property at B-48 South Extension Part-I, New Delhi-110049 (hereinafter the property in question). He was a retired professor enjoying a good reputation. Respondent No. 1 was a tenant occupying a room with an attached toilet cum bath in the property in question. He had defaulted in payment of rent and occupied a certain portion not let out to him without authorisation. Prof. Ram Prakash had been compelled to initiate litigation against Respondent No. 1 which lasted nearly fourteen years before the trial courts and appellate courts and this had led to unpleasantness between the parties. At the time of filing of the complaint Respondent No. 1 owed Rs. 90,000 to Prof. Ram Prakash as the decretal amount and in another case (443 of 2002) despite the trial Court issuing five warrants of arrest, and despite filing nineteen contempt applications, there had been no compliance by Respondent No. 1 with the orders of the court.

8. Prof. Ram Prakash in his complaint listed out the defamatory portions of the news item. Inter alia, the news item made a specific reference to the property in question and alleged that despite having been served with a notice by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and despite notice by a Local Commissioner (LC) appointed by the Delhi High Court, Prof. Ram Prakash had, as a result of some extra ordinary setting and influence, prevented the MCD from taking action. The news item further alleged that the ground floor of the property in question had been used by Bengali Sweet Centre for a kitchen and godown and about 10-12 servants were living there. The said news item further alleged that the property in question which was a residential property, was being misused for commercial purposes.

9. Prof. Ram Prakash, in his complaint, averred that the news item was published without verification of truth and with wilful blindness and malafide intention and that it was published by the R