1. Complainant in C.C 47/81 on the file of the Chief Judl. Magistrate's Court, Quilon is the appellant in this appeal. The private complaint filed against the accused 3 in number was one for offences punishable under S. 500 read with S. 34, I.P.C Complainant is a Physical Education Teacher employed in the Government High School at Pattazhi. Accused 1 and 2 are the President and Secretary respectively of the Paramanan-dodayam S.N.D.P Branch No. 676 at Maloor. The third accused is the Proprietor of Vijaya Press situated in Pathanapuram Town. The complainant's case is that on 16-3-1981 Ext. P-1 pamphlet was printed by the third accused in his press at the instance of accused 1 and 2 in pursuance of their common intention to defame the complainant, and the copies of the printed pamphlets were distributed by the accused in several parts of the Quilon District including Quilon town. The contents of Ext. P-1 are per se defamatory and that its publication is punishable under S. 500 read with S. 34, I.P.C The pamphlet is in the nature of an address to the members of the community, in order to bring to their notice the misdeeds of the complainant in his relationship with Maloor S.N.D.P branch. It is alleged therein that the complainant is a defaulter in the payment of subscriptions and dues to the S.N.D.P branch and that without clearing the arrears of subscriptions the complainant was adopting a short-cut method of approaching the Adinattu S.N.D.P Branch No. 1263 for getting Vivaha Pathrika for conducting his sister's marriage. The complainant's activities against the interest of Maloor S.N.D.P branch are narrated in Ext. P-1. It has been further stated that they are the acts of a teacher, who should set an example to other members of the society. Reference was also made to the complainant's father's activities of similar nature. The complainant has been described as a Drill Master and an Ignoramus (omitted as in vernacular).
2. On the side of the complainant P.Ws 1 to 8 were examined and Exts. P-1 to P-7 were marked. The accused got D.Ws 1 to 3 examined and Exts. D-1 to D-10 proved. After considering this evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the conduct of accused 1 and 2 would come within the First Exception to S. 499, I.P.C and hence they are not guilty of any offence. Accordingly all the accused were acquitted under S. 255(1) of the Cr. P.C Hence this appeal.
3. Accused 1 and 2 admit that they have got Ext. P-1 pamphlet printed at the press belonging to the third accused and that it was published by them. The third accused also admit that Ext. P-1 pamphlet was printed by him in his press at the instance of accused 1 and 2. The further contention of accused 1 and 2 who are the President and Secretary of the S.N.D.P Branch, Maloor is that the General Body of the branch approved the draft of Ext. P-1 and authorised them to get it printed and to publish the same. It was only on account of the authority given by the General Body that they published Ext. P-1 pamphlet and that it contains only statements which are true. The accused plead justification under Exception (1) to S. 499, I.P.C The said exception states that it is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it for the public good is a question of fact. To come within this exception the imputation should not only be proved to be true, but it must also be proved that it was for the public good that it was published. In other words, no amount of truth will justify a libel unless its publication was for the good of the public. A subject may become one of public interest if the public or a section of the public become interested in it. When truth is set up as a defence it must extend to the entire matter published and it is not sufficient that only a portion of the statement is proved to be true.
4. Ext. P-1 contains statements regarding the activities of the complainant vis-a-vis the S.N.D.P Branch No. 676 of Maloor. It is stated that the complainant was trying to overreach the members of the community and was trying to make them fools. He was modulating his activities ignoring the interest of the S.N.D.P branch and was making it appear that the non-cooperation of the members of the community was not going to do any harm to him. Subscriptions and dues legally due to the branch were not paid by him. He secretly approached Branch No. 1263 to get Vivaha Pathrika for conducting his sister's marriage. Such were the heroic deeds of an educated man who should set an example to other members of the community. It proceeded to state that similar anti-social elements were in existence even in the past. In spite of their misdeeds the community progressed and developed. In case he was not possessed of means to pay the dues and had apprised the branch of his inability, the community, would have come to his rescue. Since the complainant had taken such a hostile attitude against the interest of the community he had been removed even from the primary membership. He should not consider the activities as cove table. No one can thrive against the wrath of the community. Temporary gains may be there but they will be black spots in your character which the coming generation may not be in a position to wash off. The actions done by your father against the interest of the community has now been brought to the notice of the present generation by your misdeeds. By the grace of ‘Gurudevan’ let wisdom dawn on you so that this heritage may be put an end to. The complainant has been described as ignoramus (omitted as in vernacular).
5. In Ext. P-1 the complainant's father has been described as a person, who had acted to the detriment of the community. Explanation (1) to S. 499, I.P.C states:
“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.”
6. In the pamphlet Ext. P-1 the accused have described the deceased father of P.W 1 as a person who had done harm to the community and as a person who had acted against its interests. According to the accused, those injurious acts of the complainant's father were brought to the notice of the present generation by the repetition of the similar actions carried out by P.W 1. This statement in Ext. P-1 was also sought to be justified as true and hence falling within the first exception. No evidence can be let in to prove the truth of this statement. Acts of a deceased cannot be allowed to be proved as true if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person. Justification by truth under the first exception can be only in respect of the actions taken by a living person. If the imputation would harm the reputation of a deceased person, according to me, the accused cannot plead the first exception and disclaim liability.
7. D.W 1 has been examined on the side of the accused to prove that the father of the complainant had also acted against the interest of the community. According to him, when the S.N.D.P branch was constructing a building of its own in 1118 M.E, the complainant's father took a hostile attitude, obstructed the construction, tried to manhandle the mason who was doing the construction work and that he tried to pull down the door and the walls. D.W 1 is closely related to the first accused. Brother-in-law of the first accused married this witness's grand daughter. He had the audacity to say that his wife was not convicted in an offence punishable under S. 55(g) of the Abkari Act. Ext. P-6 is the attested copy of the judgment in C.C 1168/79 on the file of the Judl. IInd Class Magistrate's Court, Punalur. The accused therein Panchami Kochikka of Pooman-galathu Veedu, has been admitted by this witness as his wife. In re-examination he categorically stated that in Maloor there is no other house bearing the name Poomangalathu. The evidence of D.W 1 taken along with Ext. P-6 would go to show that he is not a reliable and trustworthy witness. The trial Court has described as D.W 1 as a venerable old man and that the sentence of Rs. 50/- imposed in Ext. P-6 was so paltry and that it was passed on the admission of the accused and in all probability D.W 1 might not have known about such a case and the conviction of his wife. I find it difficult to subscribe to this view. I disbelieve the evidence of this witness. It is thus seen that the accused have failed even in establishing the truth of the allegations made against the deceased. The imputation made against the deceased is such that it caused harm to his reputation. It therefore follows that the accused have published Ext. P-1 to defame the deceased father of P.W 1.
8. The evidence adduced in the case goes to show that the complainant was in arrears in paying the subscription and dues to the Maloor Branch of the S.N.D.P Union that he was removed from the Presidentship, that he had by-passed the Maloor S.N.D.P branch and approached the Adinattu S.N.D.P branch for the purpose of getting the Vivaha Pathrika for conducting his sister's marriage and that the conduct of the complainant was not conducive to the welfare of the Maloor Branch of the S.N.D.P Union. The minutes of the General Body held on 15-3-1981 would show that the General Body took a decision to remove the complainant from the primary membership of the branch for his activities against the interest of the branch. The General Body had taken a decision to print and publish a pamphlet, the draft of which was prepared at the meeting. The fund necessary for the printing of the pamphlet was also allotted at that meeting. This pamphlet Ext. P-1 not only contains statements regarding the activities of the complainant vis-a-vis the S.N.D.P branch but also statements which are per se defamatory. A person cannot be described as ignoramus even with the authority of the General Body of the S.N.D.P branch. It is per se defamatory. According to me the learned Magistrate went wrong in holding “the term may amount to an abuse, but is not a defamatory per se”. The evidence of D.Ws 2 and 3 who were parties to the resolution of the General Body would go to show that they will not tolerate their being described as ignoramus.
9. On account of the steps taken by the complainant in getting Vivaha Pathrika from another branch without clearing the outstanding arrears to the Maloor Branch the office bearers wanted to take the complainant to task. According to the accused no member is entitled to approach another branch of the S.N.D.P Union and get Vivaha Pathrika when arrears are due to the branch where he is a member. For this, reliance is placed on Ext. D-10 circular issued by the General Secretary to the Secretaries of various unions. This circular shows that the Secretaries of the units are not to issue Vivaha Pathrika when the member seeking to get it is a defaulter in paying the subscriptions to the local branch where he resides. This circular as noted earlier is a direction to the Secretaries of the various branches. The Secretaries are to comply with it. If the complainant was in arrears with the Maloor branch, no other branch should issue the required Vivaha Pathrika. But when the Athinadu branch issued the Pathrika without demur, on there quest of P.W 1's uncle, how can the complainant be found fault with. This incident cannot be taken as a violation of Ext. D-10 circular by the complainant, for him to be chastised. The Maloor Branch ought to have taken up the matter with the Athinadu branch and settled the matter between them. Even if the office bearers of the Maloor Branch wanted to express their displeasure on the steps taken by the complainant they should not have used words which are per se defamatory. A reading of Ext. P-1 would further show that the object of its publication was not only to criticize the action taken by the complainant but also to warn and terrorise the members of the community against similar activities and to let them know of the consequences. This attitude cannot be taken as one adopted for the public good.
10. Exception (1) to S. 499, I.P.C recognises the publication of truth as sufficient justification if it is made for the public good When truth is set up as a defence it must extend to the entire statement. It is not sufficient that only a part of the statement is proved to be true. From the foregoing discussions it can be seen that Ext. P-1 was published not for the public good but for warning the public of the consequence that will ensue in case they adopt the course taken by the complainant. The accused have not succeeded in proving that the entire statements contained in Ext. P-1 are true. They have published defamatory matters harming the reputation of a deceased person as well. In Ext. P-1 the accused have used words which are per se defamatory. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that the accused are guilty of the Offence punishable under S. 500 read with S. 34, I.P.C They are convicted for the said offence. In the result, the appeal is allowed Accused, respondents 1 to 3 in this appeal, are found guilty of the offence punishable under S. 500 read with S. 34, I.P.C and are convicted thereunder. They are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each for the said offence. In default of payment of fine they are directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
11. Appeal allowed.
Comments