Back
1987 Supreme(MP) 80
Gulab C. Gupta, J.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (JABALPUR BENCH)
Alok Mitra, ‘Editor‘, Satya Katha and Ors.
Vs.
Narendra Kumar @ Nanda Rai and Anr.
Cri. Rev. No. 331 of 1984
Decided On: 27.02.1987
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: H.S. Chouhan, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Umesh Trivedi Adv. for non-applicant No. 1
Publication of a substantially true report of court proceedings and publication made in good faith for the protection of the public interest are protected by the Exceptions to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and do not amount to defamation.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL REVISION - SECTION 245(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED - GROUNDLESS CHARGE - DEFAMATION - SECTION 499 AND 500 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - FREEDOM OF PRESS - INTERPRETATION OF EXCEPTIONS TO SECTION 499 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - PUBLICATION OF COURT PROCEEDINGS - INTENTION TO HARM REPUTATION - PUBLIC INTEREST.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants, editor, printer, and contributor of a Hindi monthly magazine, were put on trial for defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code for publishing a story based on the facts of a murder and robbery trial in which the complainant was acquitted. The story was substantially based on the facts brought out on the record of the trial, but it did not verbatim reproduce the court proceedings. The complainant alleged that the story was intended to defame him and bring him into disrepute.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the publication of the story did not amount to defamation as it was a substantially true report of the court proceedings and was protected by the Fourth Exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also held that the publication was made in good faith for the protection of the public interest and was protected by the Ninth Exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The court further held that the applicants had the freedom of press and that the law of defamation would not be applied with any more vigor than it would otherwise be applied.
Issues: 1. Whether the publication of the story amounted to defamation under Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code? 2. Whether the publication was protected by the Exceptions to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code? 3. Whether the applicants had the freedom of press and whether the law of defamation would be applied with any more vigor than it would otherwise be applied?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the publication of the story did not amount to defamation as it was a substantially true report of the court proceedings and was protected by the Fourth Exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also held that the publication was made in good faith for the protection of the public interest and was protected by the Ninth Exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The court held that the applicants had the freedom of press and that the law of defamation would not be applied with any more vigor than it would otherwise be applied.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order, and discharged the applicants as the charge against them was found to be groundless.
Gulab C. Gupta, J.
1. This revision, filed under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the order dated 30-4-1984, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Class I, Mandla in Criminal Case No. 148 of 1981 (Narendra Kumar v. Alok Mitra and Ors.).
2. On a complaint dated 20-12-1979 filed by the non-applicant No. 1, the applicants have been put on trial for offence under Section 500, Indian Penal Code. After filing of the complaint, the learned Magistrate examined the complainant and found a prima facie case existing against the appllicants and therefore issued process for their appearance, on the same date. Later on, when the applicants appeared before the learned Magistrate, particulars of offence were explained to them on 3-5-1980. The matter had been brought to this Court twice before (Criminal Revision No. 550 of 80 and Criminal Revision No. 83 of 81) for decision whether the judicial Magistrate had territorial jurisdiction to try the offence and Whether the procedure followed by him was proper. As a result of the aforesaid, the evidence of complainant in the case has not yet started. On 27-4-1983 the applicants, through their Advocate moved an application under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for their discharge, as charges against them, were groundless. This application has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 30-4-1984 which is the subject matter of this application. By the impugned order the learned Judicial Magistrate has held that since particulars of offence were explained to the applicants only because the Court found the prima facie case existing against them and nothing new has been brought on record since then, the application did not lie.
3. The facts of the case relevant for purposes of this application, are that on the night intervening 27th and 28th May, 1976 at village Pondi, District Mandla two persons were murdered and ornaments worth about Rs. 15,000/-robbed. The incident came to be popularly known as Jabda Tod Kand. Non-applicant No. 1 Narendra Kumar and 3 others were tried for this death and robbery before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandla in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 1978. They were however, acquitted by the judgment dated 23-9-1978 on a finding of "not guilty". Applicants Nos. 1 and 2 are the editor and printer of Hindi monthly magazine "Satyakatha" published from Allahabad. Applicant No. 3 is the contributor to the said magazine. It appears that a story in connection with the aforesaid murder and robbery, came to be published in February, 1979 issue of "Satyakatha". The said story was written by non-applicant No. 3. Since a copy of the magazine exists on the record, this Court had the advantage of going through the same. The story appears at page 82 onwards and is based on facts of the trial held in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. It is, however, not a verbatim re-production of the Court proceedings though it is substantially based on facts brought out on record of the trial. Indeed, it would appear that the applicant No. 3, the author had refrained from saying any thing about Court's proceedings presumably because of legal provisions about their publication. The article, however, deals with pre-trial stage of the case in detail and states circumstances under which non-applicant No. 1 Narendra Kumar and Baisakhu were arrested. The article also deals with the talk which the applicant Dr. Kailash Narad had with the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer. At the end of the article it is mentioned that Investigating Officer Jail Singh, after completing the investigation, had filed a charge-sheet in the Court from where the matter was sent to the Session for trial. The article further mentions that the District and Sessions Judge, Mandla, after completing the Sessions Trial, held that the police had not been able to prove the charge of murder and robbery against non-applicants Narendra Kumar and Baisakhu
