A person who provides false information to a newspaper is not liable for damages to the editor of the newspaper if the editor publishes the information and is subsequently held liable for defamation.

1. Sodhi gurbachan Singh, petitioner, was the Editor, printer and publisher of an under weekly named Sach. This paper was published from Ludhiana. Shakti Parshad of village Sangat Pura Sodhian, respondent No.2, was the representative of this paper at Sirhind. Baboo ram of Hussain Pura, respndent NO.1, approach Shakti Parshad and informed him that the Tahsildar at Sirhind had, while disposing of evacuee property, situate in villag eHussain Pura, made a lot of money by accepting more amounts from bidders and issuing receipts for lesser amounts to them. He gave his own example and stated that he had paid Rs.250/- for one of such properties and the receipts issued to him was for Rs. 50/- only. On 31-5-1961, Baboo Ram dictated this news to Shakti Parshad and then put his signatures on the manuscript. On enquiry from the former whether that news was correct, the latter was informed that was so. Shakti Parshad then sent this news item to Sodhi Gurbachan Singh for publication in his paper. This news was then published in the issue of 24th of June 1961. Translated in English, it read as under:

"Evacuee property at Hussainpura (Tehsil Sirhind)- Fictitious bids- Through the special representative of the Sach we have received from a resident of Hussainpura a written complaint, in which he ahas written: "The Tehsildar, Sirhind, received rupees 250 in cash from me and closed the bid for a Muslim house in my name. But I have received the treasury receipt of rupees fifty only. Treasury receipts showing nominal amounts have been issued in respect of all the houses comprising Muslim property which have been auctioned. The remaining part of the money for which the plots were sold has been misappropriated by the Tehsildar. I came to know of this thing on 24-5-1961 when other people got the receipts. He has misappropriated about four thousand rupees. Get the report printed immediately in the newspaper and have an enquiry conducted". (Editorial staff of the Sach)."

This news had been published on the basis of the letter written by Baboo Ram to Shakti Parshad. After its publication, the public prosecutor, Ludhiana, filed a complaint against Sodhi Gurbachan Singh under section 500/501, Indian Penal Code, in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. On 31st of May, 1962, the learned Judge convict Sodhi Gurbachan Singh under section 500, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment. On appeal, this court reduced the sentence of imprisonment of six month to one till the rising of the court, but in addition Sodhi Gurbaachan Singh was fined rs.500/-. This was on 28-2-1963. Later on, after serving a notice on Baboo Ram, Sodhi Gurbachan Singh, in February 1964, filed a suit against him for the recovery of rs.500/-. Shakti Parshad was also imploded as defendant No.2, but no relief was claimed against him.. The allegations in the plaint were that Baboo ram had given wrong news to Shakti Parshad, though he asserted it to be correct. The same was then published in the newspaper with the result that Sodhi Gurbachan Singh had to suffer imprisonment and fine. The result of all this was that Sodhi Gurbachan Singh had to undergo mental anguish apart from the fact that he was put to financial loss as well. On that basis, he claimed damages in the sum of Rs.500/- from Baboo Ram.

2. The suit was contested by Baboo Ram, who pleaded that he had not given any letter to Shakti Parshad for publication in the newspaper. His case was that Shakti Parshad wrote a lease deed in his presence saying that he was giving his agaricultural laand to one Hazura Singh, Harijan, on lease and on that paper his signatures had been obtained by Shakti Parshad.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following two issues were framed:

1. Whether the contents of letter dated 31-5-1961 were not dictated by Baboo Ram and he signed it considering it to be a lease deed, and if so what is its effect?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.500/