Describing unmarried woman as concubine of a particular person in a plaint filed in Court does not amount to publication.

Petitioner, Thangavelu, has been convicted under section 500 Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200

and out of the fine amount if realised, Rs. 100 has been ordered to be paid to P.W.1 as compensation under section

545(1), Criminal Procedure Code.

The petitioner described the complainant Ponnammal as (concubine) of P.W.2, Namasivaya Odayar in a plaint filed by

him in S.C. No. 349 of 1963 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Tirukoilur. P.W.1 (Ponnammal) complainant in

this case, is an unmarried Brahmin woman aged thirty years and the statement of the petitioner in his plaint that she is the

concubine of P.W.2 is clearly defamatory. This is not disputed.

The facts mentioned in ground No. 7 as reasonable grounds for the belief of the petitioner that P.W.1 (Ponnammal) was

the concubine of P.W.2 Namasivaya Odayar were considered by the Courts below which negatived the contention of

the petitioner. They found that P.W.1 was an unmarried Brahmin girl and not a concubine of P.W.2 (Namasivaya

Odayar). It appears from the judgments of the Courts, below that the petitioner relied on Exception 1 to section 500,

Indian Penal Code. In fact, paragraph 12 of the appellate Court’s judgment shows that it was urged on. behalf of the

appellant (petitioner here) that it was sufficient if the accused had reason to believe that P.W.1 was the concubine of

P.W.2. At the end of the paragraph the appellate Court has found that the appellant (petitiner here) had no reasonable

reason to believe that P.W. 1 was the concubine of P.W.2.

The main ground urged by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that there was no publication as the copy of the

plaint, Exhibit P-1 was sent only to P.W.1 Ponnammal. I am unable to accept this contention. It was not argued in either

of the Courts below or mentioned in the grounds of revision that there was no publication in this case. The learned

Advocate for the petitioner relied upon paragraph 14 of the appellate Court’s judgment in support of his contention that

the plea had been taken, but a reading of that paragraph would show that the plea taken was that the allegation would

not amount to defamation. It is clear from paragraph 4 of the complaint filed in this case that the defamation complained

of in this case was with regard to the allegation in the plaint in S.C. No. 349 of 1963 on the file of the District Munsif’s

Court of Tirukoilur and in the same paragraph the complainant has referred to her having received a copy of the plaint

Exhibit P-1. The filing of the plaint in the Court has been spoken to by P.W.3 Sri P.R. Subramanian who filed the plaint

on behalf of the petitioner. Thus there can be no doubt that the defamation contained in the plaint was published by the

plaint being filed in the Court. Further, even assuming that the complainant referred to the allegation in Exhibit P-1, still

there is publication. It is clear from a scrutiny of the copy of the plaint, Exhibit P-1, that it was prepared by P.W.3 and

filed into Court, and it bears the seal of the District Munsif’s Court, Tirukoilur. The copy of the plaint should be

compared with the original by the Court before it is served on the defendant by registered post. The learned Advocate

for the petitioner relied on the decision in Jeremiah v. Vas1, in support of his contention that there should be publication

and that the fact that a certain copy of a paper appears to be printed and published by A is not proof of publication by

him. It is clear from what I have stated that the decision is hardly applicable to the facts of the present case. The

decision refers to a publication in a paper and it should be proved that the accused was responsible for the publication.

But in this case, the defamatory matter contained in the plaint was admittedly signed and filed by the petitioner. There

can be no doubt that there was publication of the defamatory matter.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner relied on Exception 9 to section 500, In