News alleging public servant corruption not defamatory if in good faith for public good, based on withheld information about public funds, with prior civil suit dismissal on same facts attaining finality.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Instant criminal appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays challenge to judgment dated 10.07.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (IV), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in case number RBT 72/2 of 2011/03 titled as Rakesh Kaushal Vs. Arvind Goel, whereby complaint, having been filed by the appellant/complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC, came to be dismissed.

2. Precisely, the grouse of the appellant, as has been highlighted in the appeal and further canvassed by Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel representing the appellant, is that Court below has fallen in grave error while passing the impugned judgment, because evidence adduced on record by the complainant to prove his case under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC has not been appreciated in right perspective. He stated that though by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence, complainant successfully proved on record that on account of lodging of complaint at the behest of complainant to Hon’ble Governor and other higher authorities of the Government of Himachal Pradesh as well as publication of news item in newspaper “Him Himwanti”, highlighting therein alleged corruption by the complainant while working as Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur at Nahan, reputation of the complainant was badly damaged, but yet Court below taking hypertechnical view, discarded the same and proceeded to dismiss the complaint. Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel representing the appellant, stated that CW2-D.S. Rana and CW3-Rakesh Sharma categorically deposed that on account of publication of news item, as detailed hereinabove, image of the complainant, who is otherwise considered to be an honest officer, was badly maligned and as such, there was no occasion, if any, for Court below to dismiss the complaint, rather, it ought to have taken cognizance of the offences committed by the respondent (hereinafter, ‘accused’) under and 500 of the .

3. To the contrary, Mr. Sumit Sood, learned counsel representing respondent, while supporting the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below, vehemently argued that no cogent and convincing evidence ever came to be led on record at the behest of complainant to prove defamation, if any, at the hands of the accused. He stated that since it is not in dispute that accused published the news item, which is alleged to be defamatory, in the capacity of Editor of Him Himwanti newspaper, coupled with the fact that contents of the news item were otherwise found to be correct by the Court below on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the complainant itself, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Court below while dismissing the complaint. He submitted that besides filing complaint before the Court below, complainant also filed suit for damages titled as Rakesh Kaushal Vs. Arvind Goel in the competent Court of law i.e. learned Additional District Judge, Nahan, but the same was dismissed on 30.09.2009. He stated that by now it is well settled that findings recorded by Civil Court prevails until reversed by the Appellate Court, after duly considering the same and weighing the evidence afresh. He contended that since judgment rendered by the Civil Court was never laid challenge in the