1946 Present : Howard C. J. and de Silva J.

PERERA, Appellant, and PEIRIS, ET AL, Respondents.

84- D. C. Colombo, 15,069.

Defamation- Publication of defamatory statement in newspaper ? statement an extract from the report of a Commission which was appointed by Governor-Pleas of Absence of animus injuriandi, Justification and Privilege- Ordinance No. 25 of 1942, ss. 5, 6.

The plaintiff sued the first and second defendants, who are the printer and owner respectively of the Ceylon Daily News, for defamatory libel in respect of the following statement published in their newspaper: ?Dr. M. G. Perera (the plaintiff) who gave evidence was completely lacking in frankness and pretended that he knew very much less about
the transaction that he actually did.?

The statement was an extract from the report of the Commissioner who had been appointed by the Governor in pursuance of a resolution passed by the State Council that a Commission should be appointed to inquire into charges of bribery and corruption made against its members.

It was established (a) that the plaintiff was a stranger to the first defendant who authorized the publication and that there was no evidence that the defendants in publishing the report were actuated by express malice, (b) that the Bribery Commissioner?s report was sent to the first defendant as a Sessional Paper, free of charge, by the government Printer, (c) that the report concerned a matter of public interest eagerly awaited by readers of the Daily News, (d) that the extracts selected for publication quoted the Commissioner verbatim.
    
Held, that the defendants had proved conclusively that the circumstances in which publication took place negatived the existence to succeed.
    
Held, further, (I) that the truth of the statement in conjunction with the fact that what was published was for the public benefit established the defence of justification. The question as to whether what was published was a matter of public interest was not a question of pure fact and the finding of the trial Judge, on that point, could be reversed by the Appellate court if it was based on wrong inferences drawn form truthful evidence;

(ii) that the publication was subject to a privilege which could be negatived only by proof of express malice;

(iii) that the provisions of section 5 and 6 of Ordinance No. 25 of 1942 could not in any way affect the operation of the defence of privilege in favour of the defendants.

Per Howard C.J. ??From the principles elaborated by me it is manifest that the question as to whether a statement defamatory per se is true does not in Roman Dutch Law assume the importance that it does in English law. In Roman-Dutch law the burden is on the defendant, whether the statement is true or false, to prove that he had no animus injuriandi.?

APPEAL from a judgment of the District judge of Colombo. The facts appear from the head note.

N. Nadarajah, K. C. (with him C. Renganathan and G. T. Samarawickreme), for the plaintiff, appellant.- the words published by the defendants are clearly defamatory of the plaintiff. The trial Judge has, however, although he answered almost all the issues in plaintiff?s favour, dismissed plaintiff?s claim on the ground that the libel was published on a privileged occasion. He has held that the proceedings of the Bribery Commissioner were those of a judicial tribunal and, therefore, the publication of the Commissioner?s report was privileged. It is submitted that the Bribery Commission constituted under the Commission of Inquiry Ordinance (Cap. 276) and Ordinance No. 25 of 1942 cannot be regarded as a judicial tribunal. It was nothing more than a fact-finding Commission appointed to advice the Governor. The Commissioner?s report was not meant for the public. The case of O? Connor v. Waldron1 is directly in point. See also Queen Empress v. Tulja 2; Royal Aquarium & Summer & Winter Garden Society v.