The central legal point established in the judgment is that the privilege of publishing reports of court proceedings cannot be misused by twisting facts to make scandalous allegations against a party to the proceedings. The 4th exception to S.499 of the Indian Penal Code requires that the report of court proceedings must be substantially true to avoid being considered defamatory.

1. Appellant is the complainant in C.C. 234 of 1981 of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The complaint has been filed against the respondents (Al to A4) under S.500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant's case is that accused 1 to 4 published in the Sunday edition of the "Kerala Times" daily known as "Sathyanadam", a news item which is per se defamatory to him. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held that the news item would come within the purview of 4th exception to S.499 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused are entitled to the protection thereof.

2. The complainant has produced a copy of the news item published in Sathyanadam on 9-8-1981. The complainant examined as P.W.1 deposed that the news item (Ext. P2) is a distorted version of the judgment in M.C. 21 of 1980 filed by his wife for maintenance against him before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Cochin. P.Ws. 2 and 3 deposed that they read Ext. P2 news item and found it objectionable. Accused 1 to 4 have not disputed that they printed and published Ext. P2 news item in respect of Ext. P1 order in C.C. 234 of 1981 of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Cochin. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held that there is ample evidence on record to show that the accused printed and published Ext. P-2 news item.

3. The point to be considered is as to whether Ext. P2 news item is defamatory to the complainant and whether the accused can invoke the benefit of the 4th exception to S.499 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant's wife had filed M.C. 21 of 1980 against him claiming maintenance. Ext. P1 is the certified copy of the order in M.C. 21 of 1980. The maintenance case was filed by the complainant's wife on the allegation that her husband is impotent and unable to perform sexual intercourse and that he had ill-treated her. The learned Magistrate held in Ext. PI order that the wife's allegation that her husband is impotent is not supported by any evidence. It is also mentioned in Ext. P1 order that at the time of argument the wife's counsel did not press the allegation of impotency. The maintenance application was allowed only on the ground of cruelty. The order in M.C. 21 of 1980 was passed on 31-7-1981. Ext.P2 was

published on 9-8-1981. In Ext. P-2 it is stated that the Magistrate has held that the complainant has no genital organ and that he should pay maintenance to his wife.

4. Contention of the appellant is that Ext.P2 news item is not in consonance with Ext.P1 order of the Magistrate and as such the news item is defamatory to the complainant and the accused are liable to be punished. Counsel submitted that the court allowed the maintenance application only on the ground of cruelty and not on any other ground and therefore it can never be said that Ext.P2 is a substantially true report of the order of the Court.

5. S.501 imposes punishment on any person who prints or engraves any defamatory matter. S.499 of the Indian Penal Code contains several exceptions. We are concerned only with the 4th exception. The 4th exception to S.499 makes it clear that it is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of a court of justice or of the result of any such proceedings. Thus it can be seen that publication of substantially true report of the proceedings of a court of justice or of the result of any such proceedings will not amount to defamation. Reports of the proceedings of a court of justice or of the result of any such proceedings can be published by newspapers. There cannot be any doubt on that. That privilege cannot be misused by twisting facts to make scandalous allegations against a party to the proceedings. Misquoting of the orders of the courts or mis reporting or reporting a coloured version of the orders can never be allowed. Under the coyer of the 4th exception newspapers cannot take the liberty to write anything and everything in utter disregard of what is contained in the C