Back
1987 Supreme(Ker) 487
Judges : K.G.BALAKRISHNAN
Nazeem Bavakunju - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala And Others - Respondent
Case No : Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 1985
Decided On : 10/16/1987
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant: V. K. Hamza, Advocates. For the Respondent: K. P. Dandapani, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of S. 199, Cr.P.C, and S. 499, I.P.C, in the context of defamation cases, emphasizing the requirement of the complainant being a person aggrieved and the importance of substantial truth and good faith in defamation allegations.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Defamation - S. 199, Cr.P.C - S. 499, I.P.C - S. 460(e), Cr.P.C
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a complaint against the respondents, alleging defamation of her husband in a newspaper publication. The trial court acquitted the accused, stating that the appellant was not a person aggrieved by the publication and that the accused were entitled to protection under exception 9 of S. 499, I.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint filed by the appellant was incompetent under S. 199, Cr.P.C, and that the irregularity in taking cognizance of the offence was not a curable defect. The court also held that the acquittal of the accused was reasonable and proper based on the evidence presented.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was entitled to file a criminal complaint under S. 199, Cr.P.C, and whether the accused were protected under exception 9 of S. 499, I.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was not a person aggrieved by the publication and that the complaint was incompetent under S. 199, Cr.P.C. The court also emphasized the importance of the substantial truth and good faith in defamation cases, as well as the need for the accused to prove their case by the preponderance of probability.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused was upheld.
This is an appeal filed against the acquittal of the accused in C.C. 12 of 1983 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. Respondents 2 to 5 were arrayed as accused in a private complaint preferred by the appellant. The respondent 2 to 4 are the Printer and Publisher, Managing Director and Chief Editor respectively of the News Paper "Malayala Manorama". The 5th respondent is the Cochin correspondent of the newspaper.
2. The complainant has been working as a Senior Grade Assistant in Kerala Financial Corporation. Her husband Bavakunju was formerly an employee working in the Kerala Education Department. During the relevant period he was working as a Headmaster on deputation in Mujahidin High School, Panayappilly, Cochin. In the month of January 1983 arrangements were made for the conduct of school Youth Festival Celebrations of Kerala at Ernakulam. The complainant's husband Bavakunju was nominated as the convener of the Publicity Committee. The school youth festival started on 25th January 1983. The complainant's husband meanwhile got an employer at Abudabi (Middle East) and he left India on 27-1-1983. On 1-2-1983 the newspaper 'Malayala Manorama' carried a news item. The relevant extract which is marked as Ext.P1(a) is to the following effect.
The appellant filed the complaint alleging that the publication of this news item is an attack on the character of the complainant's husband and was intended to malign his reputation and she also alleged that the news item had the desired effect and the same made them appear low in the eye of the public. The appellant examined three witnesses on her side and one witnesses was examined on defence side. Series of documents were also produced on behalf of the appellant. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence on record acquitted the accused mainly for the reason that the complainant is not a person aggrieved by the publication of the news item and therefore she was not entitled to file a petition. The learned Magistrate also held that the accused were entitled to protection of exception 9 of S. 499, I.P.C. The finding of the learned Magistrate is challenged by the appellant.
3. The first question that arise for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to file a criminal complaint in view of S. 199 of the Cr.P.C. Under S. 199 no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Penal Code except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. In the present case the imputation, even according to the appellant, is directed against Bavakunju, the husband of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the imputation has lowered the reputation of Bavakunju in the eye of public and therefore the appellant is really aggrieved by such defamatory statement. The counsel further contended that considering the husband and wife relationship prevalent in our society the wife is to be considered as an indivisible part of the husband and therefore the wife also is really aggrieved in a case where the reputation of her husband was at stake.
3A. There may be cases where the wife also would be really aggrieved when the imputation is of such a nature that it has got some direct connection attaching the reputation of the wife. Section 199, Cr.P.C. restricts the powers of the Court in taking cognizance of offence except upon a complaint filed by some aggrieved person. The question is whether the person who filed the complaint of defamation is or is not really aggrieved within the meaning of that section. This is a question which should be decided on the basis of the nature of accusation and also on other relevant circumstances. A fanciful or sentimental grievance of the complainant would not suffice. It must be such grievance as the law can appreciate and it must be what has been termed 'legal grievance'. Only such a person as has directly or indirectly suffered loss of reputation complaine
