AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.N. Moorthy, J.—Two accused faced a trial before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pollachi in C.C. No. 744 of 1977 for
an offence under S. 501, I.P.C. Both of them were convicted for the said offence and Al was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 in default to suffer
simple imprisonment for four weeks, and A2 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for eight weeks.
Against the order of the trial court, P.W.1, the complainant, has preferred this revision for enhancement of the sentence imposed on the accused.
Briefly, the case against the respondents, hereinafter referred to as Al and A2 is as follows: A1 is the Editor and Publisher of the daily ''Malai
Murasu''. A2 is the Reporter. P.W.1, the complainant is a citizen of Kinathukadavu village in Pollachi Taluk. He is a leading agriculturist of the
locality and a well known figure. He owns lands In Solavapalayam and Vadapudhur villages. He contested from Kinathukadavu constituency in the
by election to the State Legislature on the Janatha Party ticket.
On 14th October, 1977, a false and baseless and highly defamatory news item appeared in the daily, Malai Murasu. The said item is follows:
The said news items as seen is published as though P.W.1 was arrested by the Deputy Inspector of Police, charged and convicted for gambling by
the Judicial Magistrate, Pollachi, in a case filed against him. It is the case of P.W.1, the complainant, that he was not involved in any such gambling
case nor was he arrested or committed This item of news was false and it was published with the main purpose of defaming P.W.1. It has harmed
his personal reputation and low red his moral character and credit in the estimation of his partymen, friends and others. His prestige has been
brought down in the eyes of the public. His status in the party has been lowered and he has suffered a great set back in his personal standing and in
his political life.
P.W.1 had examined PWs.2 and 3 to show that they had read the defamatory news item published in ''Malai Murasu'' and that they had
enquired him about the same. P.W.2 is a member of the National Seeds Corporation. After seeing the news item, he contacted P.W.1 over phone
and enquired about the defamatory passage. Likewise, P.W.3 also deposed to the fact that the said item has created a flutter in the ranks of the
Janatha Party members. P.W.1 has produced the item published in the paper which is marked as Ex.P1. Ex.P3 is the copy of the notice he sent to
the accused and Ex.P4 is the acknowledgment for the accused having received the notice.
On the circumstances appearing on the side of the prosecution when the accused were questioned, Al stated that he was not acquainted with
P.W.1. On the relevant day, he was not in station. This particular item was not published knowing that it was false. Immediately it was known that
what was published is not correct, they made amends by publishing a correction in the ''Malai Murasu'' issue, dt. 5th November, 1977 as stated by
A2 in his statement. They have examined one witness. D,W.1 met P.W.1 and tendered an apology for publishing what was not true in their paper
on 14th October, 1977. The item of correction published on 5th November, 1977 is marked as Ex.D1.
There cannot be the slightest doubt that what the respondents published on 14th October, 1977 about P.W.1 amounts to defamation. Both the
accused have not denied the fact of such publication and they have also not taken the stand that what they have published is true. They admitted
that what they have published about P.W.1 on the relevant date is not correct and that was the reason why they made amends by publishing the
correction in their issue of the paper, dt. 5th November, 1977. Even though the version of A2 that he along with D.W.1 had not met P.W.1 in
person and tendered an apology cannot be said to be proved to one''s satisfaction as the trial Court had found, the fact remains that they had
realised what they have done on 14th October, 1977 was a mistake and they tried to male amends by publishing Ex.D1, dt. 5th November, 1977.
As a matter of fact both the accused were frank enough to say what they have published on 14th October, 1977 was not true.
On the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court was perfectly justified in convicting both the accused for an offence under S. 501 ,
I.P.C.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (P.W.1, the complainant) contended that the sentence awarded to the accused errs on the side
of leniency taking into consideration the fact that a highly respectable person''s reputation had been seriously damaged by the defamatory
publication. He further contended even the correction published on 5th November, 1977 did not contain an apology. In these circumstances, this is
eminently a fit case where the sentence imposed on the accused should be enhanced.
There is no doubt much force in what the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended. But, taking into consideration that this publication has
taken place in the year, 1977 viz., five years before and the fact that immediately the accused tried to make amends by publishing a correction in
their paper, I am of the view that the sentence at this stage need not be interfered with. The question of sentence is a matter of discretion. Of
course, it has to be exercised in a judicial way. The sentence imposed by the trial Court should Dot ordinarily be interfered with, unless the facts J
and circumstances show the sentence is grossly inadequate. When the discretion has been properly exercised along the accepted judicial lines, it
should not be interfered with, to the detriment of the accused, excepting for very strong reasons. The High Court will not interfere with the
discretion exercised by the trial Court, unless the sentence, as stated before, is grossly inadequate or a miscarriage of justice has occurred. Taking
into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that the sentence given in this case is adequate and cannot be classified as
grossly inadequate. Hence, the criminal revision for enhancing the sentence fails and is dismissed.