George vs K.V. Joseph and Others

Paned Pillay, J.—Appellant is the complainant in C.C. 234 of 1981 of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The complaint has been filed against the Respondents (A-l to A-4) under sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant''s case is that accused 1 to 4 published in the Sunday edition of the "Kerala Times" daily known as "Sathyanadam", a news item which is per se defamatory to him. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held that the news item would come within the purview of 4th exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused are entitled to the protection thereof.

The complainant has produced a copy of the news item published in Sathyanadam on 9th August 1981. The complainant examined as P.W. 1 deposed that the news item (Ext. P-2) is a distorted version of the Judgment in M.C. 21 of 1980 filed"by his wife for maintenance against him before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Glass, Cochin. P.Ws. 2 and 3 deposed that they read Ext. P-2 news item and found it objectionable. Accused 1 to 4 have not disputed that they printed and published Ext. P-2 news item in respect of Ext. P-1 order in C.G. 234 of 1981 of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Glass, Cochin. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held that there is ample evidence on record to show that the accused printed and published Ext P-2 news item.

The point to be considered is as to whether Ext. P-2 news item is defamatory to the complainant and whether the accused can invoke the benefit of the 4th exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant''s wife had filed M.C. 21 of 1980 against him claiming maintenance. Ext. P-1 is the certified copy of the order in M.C. 21 of 1980. The maintenance case was filed by the complainant''s wife on the allegation that her husband is impotent and unable to perform sexual intercourse and that he had illtreated her. The learned Magistrate held in Ext. P-1 order that the wife''s allegation that her husband is impotent is not supported by any evidence. It is also mentioned in Ext. P-1 order that at the time of argument the wife''s counsel did not press the allegation of impotency. The maintenance application was allowed only on the ground of cruelty. The order in M.G. 21 of 1980 was passed on 31st July 1981. Ext. P-2 was published on 9th August 1981. In Ext. P-2 it is stated that the Magistrate has held that the complainant has no genital organ and that he should pay maintenance to his wife.

Contention of the Appellant is that Ext. P-2 news item is not in consonance with Ext. P-1 order of the Magistrate and as such the news item is defamatory to the complainant and the accused are liable to be punished. Counsel submitted that the Court allowed the maintenance application only on the ground of cruelty and not on any other ground and therefore it can never be said that Ext. P-2 is a substantially true report of the order of the Court.

Section 501 imposes punishment on any person who prints or engraves any defamatory matter. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code contains several exceptions. We are concerned only with the 4th exception. The 4th exception to Section 499 makes it clear that it is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of justice or of the result of any such proceedings. Thus it can be seen that publication of substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of justice or of the result of any such proceedings will not amount to defamation. Reports of the proceedings of a Court of justice or of the result of any such proceedings can be published by newspapers. There cannot be any doubt on that. That privilege cannot be misused by twisting facts to make scandalous allegations against a party to the proceedings. Misquoting of the orders of the courts or misreporting or reporting a coloured version of the orders can never be allowed. Under the cover of the 4th exception newspapers cannot take the liberty to write anything and everything in utter disregard of what is contained in the Courts'' order. 4th exception to Section 499 makes it explicitly clear that the report of the proceedings of a Court of justice or of the result of any such proceedings must be substantially true. 4th exception can be pleaded only if there is a substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court or of the result of any such proceedings.

Had the accused taken a little care in going through Ext. P-1 order they would not have reported Ext. P-2 in such a fashion. Accused cannot obviously take a contention that they did not go through Ext. P-2 order. If they did not go through Ext. P-2 order how they could report it. The accused should only have published the order in Crl. M.G. 21 of 1980 without mutilating it or adding anything to it of their own. They have no right to delete any portion of the order or add any new facts to suit their whims and fancies. The news reporter has no right to report the order of the Court in his own fanciful manner and highlighting a point not decided at all. The order of the Court has its own sanctity and as it affects the rights and liabilities of the parties a newspaper reporter cannot meddle with it in any manner he likes. In Ext. P-2 a shocking and filthy report has been made in the newspaper. Complainant''s mental agony on reading it can very well be imagined. Though the freedom of the press to publish the proceedings is undoubtedly there the law does not protect every publication of distorted facts or scandalous reports under the cover of exception 4 to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is not possible to hold that accused had any justification to publish Ext. P-2 report which is totally opposed to Ext. P-1 order. The plea of the accused that what they published is actually true cannot salvage the position for them. The accused published Ext. P-2 news item as if it is a correct report of Ext. P-1 order while in fact it is not so. Counsel for the accused submitted that if any notice was issued calling upon the accused to make amends they would have heeded to it and as that has not been done they cannot be held liable for the crime. There is no force in the above contention. Having made the defamatory publication accused cannot content that they would have tendered apology to the complainant if any demand was made.

It is also contended that O.P. filed by the complainant for taking contempt of Court action was dismissed with a direction to the complainant to send a letter to the accused calling upon them to apologise and as that has not been done by him the complaint is not maintainable. There is no merit in the above contention as the contempt proceedings and the complaint filed before the criminal Court are independent proceedings.

P.W. 1''s evidence would show that on account of Ext. P-2 news item he suffered very much and for about one month he did not stir out of his house. He deposed that he approached the 3rd accused to correct Ext. P-2 news item and to publish a correction in the paper but he did not do so. P.W. 1 has sworn that 5,000 copies of the newspaper are distributed daily in his native place.

On going through the entire evidence I find that accused 1 to 4 have committed the offence punishable u/s 501 of the Indian Penal Code. They are found guilty u/s 501 of the Indian Penal Code and they are convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten days.

The judgment of the Court below is hereby set aside. The Criminal Appeal stands allowed.