IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3055 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
SRI N RAM SON OF LATE G.NARASIMHAN AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS AT NOS.859 & 860, ANNA SALAI CHENNAI-600002 .. PETITIONER (BY ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI: K S HARISH, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. DR K S RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS SON OF LATE SUBBEGOWDA PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY AND DIRECTOR OF INTEGRATED PROGRAMMES DEPARTMENT OF STUDIES IN CHEMISTRY UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE, MYSORE-534201.
2. SRI.N.P.AMRUTHESH, ADVOCATE #7, 1 FLOOR, PARKALA MUTT BUILDING, TANK BUND ROAD, NEXT TO HOTEL AMAR MAJESTIC, BANGALORE-560009.
3. SRI.VISHWESHWAR BHAT RESIDENT EDITOR, VIJAYA KARNATAKA (DAILY KANNADA NEWS PAPER) #78, 1 FLOOR, DEVRAJ URS ROAD, MYSORE-01.
HAVING REGIONAL OFFICE AT K.C.C.F COMPOUND PAMPA MAHAKAVI ROAD, OPPOSITE KANNADA SAHITHYA PARISHTH, CHAMRAJPET, BANGALORE-560018.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: MANMOHAN P N, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 31.05.2013 NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.3) IN C.C.NO.564/2012 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE J.M.F.C.-II, MYSORE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner/accused No.3 in C.C.No.564/2012 on the file of the JMFC-II at Mysore.
2. The above proceedings were registered based on the private complaint filed by respondent No.1 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. seeking action against the petitioner and the other accused person for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of the complainant/respondent No.1 is that he is a Doctor of Science having 3 decades of research and teaching experience. He is also a Fellow of Royal Society of Chemistry, London (FRSC) and a Fellow of National Academy of Sciences, India (FNASc), apart from having the distinction of having received several awards. He has delivered more than 50 lectures in different Universities of our Country as well as Foreign Universities, published more than 300 research papers with specialization in the area of cancer research.
4. The material allegations levelled against the petitioner is that being an editor of newspaper having wide circulation, he published an article in the newspaper dated 8.9.2007 which contained the following defamatory contents viz:
“Apparently Prof. Akamanchi enjoys a good rapport with Mysore University’s Chairman of Board of Studies in Chemistry K.S.Rangappa, who is the Guide for the student in her research Endeavour”.
5. According to the complainant/respondent No.1, the above publication has injured his reputation and high esteem amongst his contemporaries, students, junior colleagues, fellow academicians as well as members of his family, well-wishers, relative etc.
6. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the alleged news item was published by the petitioner based on the statements made by Accused No.1 in press conference in the presence of a television and print media personnel. Publication of such statement does not attract the provisions of Sections 499 and 500 of IPC. The news item was not published with an ulterior motive to malign the name of the petitioner. The complainant/respondent No.1 is occupying a public office and his acts are open for criticism. The petitioner being the editor of the newspaper has the duty and responsibility to set out what has been stated in the press conference. The publications made by the petitioner are protected under second and third exception appended to Section 499 of Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that except reporting the factual contents of the press conference conducted by accused No.1, petitioner has not published any other matters with a malafide intention or ulterior motive to tarnish the reputation of respondent No.1/complainant as contended. The statements published by the petitioner do not contain any insinuations and therefore the complaint lodged by respondent No.1 is wholly misconceived and the learned Magistrate has committed an error in taking cognizance of the alleged offence and issuing summons to the petitioner.
7. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of The Editor Deccan Herald, - vs. Prof. M.S. Ramaraju reported in ILR 2005 KAR 1907 and emphasized that the publication of the news item having been based on the press conference held by accused No.1, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
8. Refuting the above submissions, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has placed reliance on another decision of this Court in the case of J.Sudhir Chandrashekar – Vs. T.Lokaprakash reported in ILR 2001 KAR 4142 and has emphasized that the publication made by the petitioner is perse defamatory. Being the editor of the newspaper, the petitioner was required to exercise due care and caution before publishing the statements relating to the petitioner as the said publication has a tendency to harm the reputation of the petitioner who is held in high esteem in the society by the general public and the academic circle where the petitioner has been serving without any blemish. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner being the editor is not in any way different from that of member of the public in general and therefore, the petitioner having published defamatory statements relating to the petitioner is liable for prosecution for the offences under Sections 499/500 of Indian Penal Code and thus prayed for dismissal of the petition.
9. I have bestowed by anxious though to the submission made at the Bar and have carefully scrutinised the material on record.
10. The gist of the offence of defamation consists in dissemination of harmful imputations. In order to constitute the offence under Section 499/500 of I.P.C., the imputations made by the accused must be harmful in the sense that they should have a tendency to harm the reputation of a person. In other words the imputation should have been made with an intention of harming or with the knowledge or reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of a person concerning whom it is made. Such ingredients, in my considered opinion, are lacking in the instant case.
11. The complainant/respondent No.1 has admitted that the above publication was based on the statements made by Accused No.1 in a press conference which was attended by media personnel and TV Crew. It is not the case of the complainant that the petitioner has invented a false story and got it published with a view to tarnish the image of the complainant. Undeniably, being an editor of the newspaper, the petitioner is entitled to publish the facts and events taking place in the society. It is not the case of the complainant/respondent No.1 that the petitioner has published any contents other than what has transpired in the press conference. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.1 has not pointed any authority or precedent that in such circumstance, law cast a duty on the printer, publisher of the newspaper to ascertain the truth or veracity of the facts or statements made in a press conference or in a public platform.
12. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has referred to the decision of this Court in the case of J.Sudhir Chandrashekar Vs.T.Lokaprakash (ILR 2001 KAR 4142). The said decision is rendered in a Regular First Appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed in a Civil Suit claiming damages and permanent injunction. The suit was based on tort. Sections 499/500 of Indian Penal Code are discussed therein and reliance is placed on various decisions on the point and considering onus of proof, it is held that in order to discharge burden, the accused has to show “that the belief in the impugned statement had a rational basis and was not just a blind simple belief. That is where the element of due care and attention plays an important role.” The said principle in my view is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
13. No doubt when a person is accused of publishing defamatory matter in the newspaper and the accused takes up a plea of good faith, the accused is required to show that the publication has been honestly made in the belief of its truth and also upon reasonable ground for such a belief, after exercise of such means to verify its truth, as would be taken by a man of ordinary prudence in like circumstance as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another (AIR 1956 SC 96). But in the instant case, there being no dispute with regard to the fact that the impugned publication was made by the petitioner based on the press conference called by accused No.1 and the source of publication being known, no further enquiry into the truth or veracity of the statements made in the press conference was required to be carried out by the editor or a publisher of a newspaper for the reason that the alleged statements are attributed to the person who made them in public and the newspaper has merely covered the episode for the information of the general public for which purpose the press conference was called. For example, in a press conference called by a political party if a statement is made to the effect that a person accused of a crime is not a member of the said political party and the said statement is verbatim published in a newspaper, the publisher or editor of the newspaper cannot be held guilty for not probing into the truth or veracity of the said statement as long as the statement was attributed to the person who issued the statement in the press conference. Though at a future date it may turn out that the statement made by the person who called the press conference is false, yet, it cannot furnish a cause of action to proceed against the publisher of the newspaper for defamation under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code.
14. Thus on consideration of all the above facts and circumstances, I am of the clear view that impugned publication does not render the petitioner answerable to the charge under Section 499/500 IPC. As a result, the impugned proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
The proceedings pending on the file of JMFC-II at Mysuru in C.C.No.564/2012 are quashed only insofar as the petitioner (accused No.3) is concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE rs