The burden of proving 'good faith' under the Ninth Exception to Section 499 IPC rests solely on the accused, requiring objective evidence of due care, inquiry, and caution. Mere subjective belief is insufficient to claim protection against criminal defamation charges.

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC., N.R.Pura in C.C.No.279/2009 and the order dated 14.01.2015 passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Crl.A.No.95/2013 and allow this petition with costs.

This Criminal Revision Petition having been heard and reserved for orders on 06.03.2021, coming on for ‘Pronouncement of Order’, this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

1. The petitioner/accused has preferred this criminal revision petition challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.01.2013 passed by the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC, N.R.Pura, in C.C.No.279/2009, which has been confirmed in Crl.A.No.95/2013 by the Court of Sessions Judge, Chickamagalur, by its judgment and order dated 14.01.2015.

2. Brief facts of the case are, the respondent had lodged a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.PC against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 501 IPC. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant is a practicing advocate and a notary at Koppa. The accused who is the Proprietor, Editor, Printer and Publisher of Kannada weekly newspaper 'Tunga Varthe', had published several news articles in his newspaper making baseless allegations against the complainant with an intention to defame him and cause harm to his reputation.

3. The Trial Court after taking cognizance of the alleged offence against the accused registered the case in C.C.No.279/2009 and issued summons to the accused. The accused having appeared before the Trial Court claimed to be tried for the alleged offence. The Trial Court, thereafter, recorded the evidence of both the parties and after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides vide its judgment and order dated 21.01.2013 had convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 501 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.6,000/- with default sentence and out of the fine amount, it was ordered that Rs.4,000/- has to be paid to the complainant as compensation. This judgment and order of conviction and sentence was confirmed in appeal, and therefore, accused is before this Court in this revision petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is prima facie illegal and the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record. He also submits that the accused had published the articles in good faith with an intention to expose the complainant, and therefore, he is protected under exception nos.1 & 9 of Section 499 IPC. The courts below were therefore not justified in convicting the accused. He also submitted that even in his statement recorded by the Trial Court under Section 313 Cr.PC, the accused has stated that the publications were made by him in good faith with an intention to expose the truth and the Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the same. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Reena Hazarika vs State of Assam - (2019)13 SCC 289 and has submitted that the defence of the accused recorded in the statement under Section 313 Cr.PC has not been appreciated, and therefore, the conviction is bad in law. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the sentence imposed by the courts below is harsh and he would submit that having regard to the passage of time and taking into consideration the age of the accused, the senten