Absence of incorporation of the defamatory imputations if fatal to prosecution.

1. The appeal is by the complainant in C.C.No.613 of 1977 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam and it is directed against the judgment dated 30.5.1980 dismissing the private complaint filed for offences punishable under Sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent accused is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of a daily newspaper by name “Geetha”, published from Ernakulam. Exts. P-1, P-2 and P-3 are respectively the publications made by him in the issue of his paper dated 2.1.1977, 10.4.1977 and 21.8.1977. The complainant's case is that these publications are defamatory to her and her daughter, in having openly attacked their conduct especially morality. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused.

2. The main question arising in this appeal is whether the complaint is fatally defective inasmuch as it has not disclosed the allegations which specifically constituted the imputations affecting the reputation of the complainant and her daughter.

3. Exts. P-1 to P-4 were marked on the side of the complainant. Of them Exts. P-1 to P-3 are the impugned publications and Ext.P-4 is a postal receipt for having issued notice to the accused. P.Ws.1 to 5 are the witnesses of whom P.W.1 is the complainant. P.Ws.2 to 5 were examined to prove that by reading Exts. P-1 to P-3, the complainant and her daughter were lowered in their estimation. The defence documents are Exts. D-1 and D-2 and D-2(a). Exts. D-2 and D-2(a) are the postal receipts. Ex. D-1 is a mass petition addressed to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. It contains several allegations against the complainant and her daughter. D.Ws.1 and 2 are signatories to Ex.D-1. They have spoken to the allegations in Ex.D-1 as well as the alleged bad character, antecedents and reputation of the complainant and her daughter. A copy of Ext. D-1 was sent to the accused and it is said to be the basis of the impugned publications.

4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate seems to have acquitted the accused mainly on two grounds:

(i) The complaint is conspicuous by the absence of the specific defamatory statements and as such it did not disclose a cause of action; and

(ii) No neighbour was examined to prove the reputation of the complainant and her daughter and P.Ws.2 to 5 are not persons of the locality competent to prove the reputation of the complainant and her daughter.

5. It is true that P.Ws.2 to 5 are residing at some distance. Some of them are not having personal acquaintance with the character, antecedents and reputation of the above said persons. Some others are interested persons. Therefore, it may not be incorrect if it is found that the reputation, if any, of the complainant and her daughter is not proved by examining of these witnesses. But in a complaint for defamation, it is not necessary for the complainant to prove his or her reputation. P.Ws.2 to 4have read the publications and they said that by reading them the complainant and her daughter were lowered in their estimation.

6. It is not necessary to prove that the complainant directly or indirectly suffered from the scandalous imputations. Proof of intention, knowledge or reasonable belief on the part of the accused regarding the possible harm to reputation is sufficient. Whether harm was actually caused or not is immaterial. Even the intention to cause harm to the reputation is not a necessary factor to be proved. It is enough, if it is shown that the accused had reason to believe that the imputations are likely to harm the reputation.

7. Exts. P-1 to P-3 contained reckless imputations which are likely to affect the reputation of the complainant and her daughter and capable of lowering them in the estimation ofother. They were published in a daily newspaper. Their morality and reputation were openly challenged. They were even depicted as prostitutes extending uncultured behaviour to the society. The complainant and her daughter were described as prostitutes engaging brokers. Another a