Allowed

The Chief Editor, Malayala Manorama v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jul 2014Crl.MC/4000/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Ernakulam allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by editors of Malayala Manorama under Section 482 CrPC. The court quashed the defamation complaint against them, holding that the news publication was in good faith without malicious intent.

What did the court decide?

The criminal complaint (Annexure-A) insofar as petitioners (accused 2 and 3) are concerned is quashed.

The Chief Editor, Malayala Manorama Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2014/16TH ASHADHA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4000 of 2010 ( )

¶6

CC 327/2010 of J.UDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.2 AND 3::

¶8

THE CHIEF EDITOR, MALAYALA MANORAMA, KOTTAYAM.

¶9

THE EDITOR, MALAYALA MANORAMA, KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

C.PREETHA, D/O.CHANDRAYANI, CHANDRAKANTHAM HOUSE, PADANAYARKULANGARA NORTH KARUNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690518.

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.BINDU GOPINATH R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER R2 BY ADV. SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CRL.MC NO.4000/2010

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶19

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC 327/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY

¶20

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 29.10.2009

¶21

ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE NEW ITEM PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 22.12.2009

¶22

ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST ACCUSED TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE, DATED 17.9.2009

¶23

ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 9.2.2010

¶24

ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.2.2010

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶26

//TRUE COPY//

¶27

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

¶28

-------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.4000 of 2010

¶29

Dated this the 7^th day of July, 2014.

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

¶32

Procedure.

¶33

Petitioners are accused in C.C.No.327 of 2010 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagapally. They are implicated in offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, “IPC”).

¶34

Brief allegations in Annexure-A complaint are as follows:

¶35

The complainant/2^nd respondent is an Agricultural Officer. According to her case, she had a commendable service and earned a good reputation in the Department. The complainant was the co-ordinator of R.K.V.Y. programme intended for alleviation of food scarcity. While so, a false complaint (Annexure-D) was filed by the 1^st accused before the Agricultural Minister raising imputations against the complainant and other officers. All the allegations in Annexure-D complaint against the complainant are absolutely false. Knowing that those allegations are false, accused 2 and 3 in the complaint (petitioners herein) published defamatory news items insinuating the complainant. Annexures-B and C are the news

¶36

¶37

Crl.MC No.4000/2010

¶38

items published by the petitioners, which, according to the complainant, are per se defamatory. Hence, she contended that the accused persons are liable to be proceeded with under the said provisions of law.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

¶40

counsel for the complainant/2^nd respondent.

¶41

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that even if we accept the entire case of the complainant, even then there is no offence of defamation made out from the complaint (Annexure-A). The law of defamation is stated in Section 499 IPC. It defines 'defamation' as follows:

¶42

“ Defamation .-whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.

¶43

Explanation 1.- It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

¶44

Explanation 2.-It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.

¶45

¶46

Crl.MC No.4000/2010

¶47

Explanation 3.-An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.

¶48

Explanation 4.-No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.”

¶49

The Section contains ten exceptions. 2^nd exception to the Section deals with public conduct of public servants. As per that it is not defamation to express in a good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct and no further. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners have not added anything to the complaint filed by the 1^st accused against the 2^nd respondent. They in good faith published news item about the complaint filed by the 1^st accused against the 2^nd respondent/complainant before the Minister concerned. On a perusal of Annexures-B and C and the complaint, I am not able to find any addition in the news item with an

¶50

¶51

Crl.MC No.4000/2010

¶52

intention to malign the complainant.

¶53

Learned counsel for the complainant would contend that in paragraphs 4 and 6 of Annexure-A complaint, clear allegations are made against the petitioners for falsely publishing news items touching upon the complainant's reputation. Let us understand the precedents on the point.

¶54

The Supreme Court in Mathew v. Abraham (2002 (3) KLT 282) has considered the liability of Chief Editor and Editor of a publication under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. It has been held by the Apex Court that there is no statutory immunity against the Managing Editor, Resident Editor or Chief Editor against any prosecution for the alleged publication of any matter in the newspaper over which these persons exercise control. Law is well settled that in the complaint there must be allegations that the persons who allegedly committed the offence were responsible for publishing the defamatory matter in their respective newspaper or publications.

¶55

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of this Court in Mammen Mathew v. Radhakrishnan M.N. and another (2007 (4) ILR Kerala 406) . Learned Single Judge of this Court laid down the following proposition of law:

¶56

“The offence of defamation consists of three

¶57

essential ingredients, namely,

¶58

(1) making or publishing an imputation concerning

Crl.MC No.4000/2010

a persons

(2) such imputation must have been made by words either spoken or intended to be real or by signs or by visible representations and

¶63

(3) the said imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or with the knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned.

¶64

The mere publication of an imputation by itself may not constitute the offence of defamation unless such imputation has been made with the intention, knowledge or belief that such imputation will harm the reputation of the person concerned. By no stretch of imagination could it be said that Annexure B news item was published with the intention of harming the reputation of the complainant. The important aspect to be examined is as to whether Annexure A complaint together with the news item prima facie makes out the offence under Sec.499 I.P.C. A reading of Annexure B news item does not give the impression that it was actuated by any malevolent motive or a desire to calumniate or cast aspersions on the complainant or to expose him to public ridicule or to inflict even the slightest injury to his reputation. If so, it will be an abuse of the process of court to drag the first accused to face the ordeal of a trial.”

¶65

Another Single Judge of this Court in V.S.Achuthanandan v. Kamalamma

¶66

(2008 (3) KLT 346) held that in absence of any specific allegation of

¶67

¶68

Crl.MC No.4000/2010

¶69

malafide intention, no offence under Section 499 IPC could be said to be disclosed.

¶70

On a perusal of Annexure-A complaint and the news items, I find no reason to hold that the petitioners intentionally committed the offence of defamation against the complainant. What could be seen is that they have published a news item in tune with the complaint filed by the 1^st accused against the complainant thinking that they have a duty to discharge as provided in the 2^nd exception to Section 499 IPC. There is no reason to hold that they have maliciously published the news items with a view to defame the complainant.

¶71

In the result, the petition is allowed. The criminal complaint (Annexure-A), in so far as petitioners (accused 2 and 3) are concerned, is hereby quashed.

¶72

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.

¶73

A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

¶74

cks

The Chief Editor, Malayala Manorama v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Editor, Malayala Manorama v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs.Beena Haridas Vs C.G.Suresh Babu and Another

Sarojini Amma Vs State of Kerala

Britannia Industries Limited and Anr. Vs State of Kerala and Another

Murukan P.S. Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

Muthoot Capital Services Ltd. Vs M/S.King Fisheries Ltd.