- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sardar Bhagat Singh Akali v. Lachman Singh Akali .
Factual and Procedural Background
The complainant filed an appeal under section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the acquittal of the respondent in a defamation case under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent owned a Gurmukhi language journal, Nabi Probhat, while the co-accused, Giani Bichittar Singh, was the editor, printer, and publisher. Two editorials published in the journal contained defamatory statements about the complainant. The respondent claimed he had no guilt as the editorial was written by the editor and alleged he was implicated due to factional rivalry over control of the journal. The co-accused pleaded justification. The magistrate found the co-accused guilty but acquitted the respondent, finding no evidence of his involvement in directing the publication. The complainant challenged this acquittal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the owner of a journal can be held liable under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code for defamatory statements published in the journal without direct responsibility or intent.
- The extent of liability of the owner versus the editor, printer, and publisher in cases of defamation published in a journal.
- Whether the acquittal of the respondent, as the owner, was justified given the evidence and applicable legal principles.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The evidence of witness P.W. 2 stated that both accused were responsible for the editorials, and this evidence was not challenged in cross-examination.
- The respondent, as the owner, was responsible for the editorial policy and did not disassociate himself from the defamatory publication.
- The owner could not escape liability under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code merely by claiming lack of direct involvement.
- Reference was made to an unreported earlier decision where the respondent's discharge under section 500 was set aside, indicating possible control over the publication.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Maharashtra v. Dr. R.B Chowdhari, Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1965 (AIR 1968 SC 110) | Liability under section 500 IPC of editors registered under section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act; presumption of responsibility for defamatory publications against the editor but not against other members without direct complicity. | The court relied on this precedent to distinguish the liability of the editor from the owner, holding that the owner is liable only if direct responsibility and intent are proven, thus supporting the acquittal of the respondent. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the scope of liability under section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing that liability for defamation requires direct responsibility for publication and intent or knowledge of harm. The editor, by virtue of registration under section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, is presumed responsible for the publication. The owner, however, is not liable merely by ownership unless it is shown that he had direct control or intent regarding the defamatory publication. The court found that the respondent had vested responsibility to the editor and did not participate directly in the publication or have the necessary intent. The evidence cited by the appellant was deemed opinion without evidentiary basis. The court respectfully declined to follow the earlier unreported decision that suggested broader owner liability and instead adhered to the Supreme Court precedent distinguishing editor liability from owner liability. Consequently, the acquittal of the respondent was found to be justified.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED
The appeal against the respondent's acquittal was dismissed, affirming that ownership alone does not attract liability for defamatory statements under section 500 IPC without evidence of direct responsibility and intent. This decision limits the scope of owner liability in defamation cases involving publications and clarifies that editors registered under the Press and Registration of Books Act bear primary responsibility. No new precedent was set; the ruling applied established principles to the facts, resulting in the respondent's acquittal being upheld.
1. The complainant in a case under section 500 of the Tndian Penal Code against the present respondent and one Giani Bichittar Singh filed this appeal with the special leave of the Court under section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the acquittal of the respondent in that case The respondent was the owner of a journal in Gurmukhi language named Nabi Probhat while the co-accused in the case Giani Bichittar Singh was the editor printer and publisher thereof in two issues of that journal dated October 1 and October 6, 1964 respectively the journal published two editorials containing defamatory statements about the complainant which formed the basis of the charge framed against both the accused persons. The defence of the present respondent, as it appears from his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was that the editorial was written by the editor and that he had no guilt in the matter. He alleged that he had been impleaded in the case as the result of rivalry between two factions and that he has been the victim of that rivalry over control if the journal. The defence of the co-accused was a plea of justification.
2. The learned magistrate found on evidence that the statement was defamatory, that it was published with intent to injure the reputation of the complainant and that the co-accused Bichittar Singh was guilty as editor, printer and publisher for publishing that scurrilous statement. So far as the present respondent is concerned, the learned magistrate found that evidence has not proved that this accused had supplied information or direction to the other accused to publish the editorial or that he gave any directive in the matter of the publication thereof. On this finding, he acquitted the present respondent and it is the propriety of that acquittal which is challenged in this appeal.
3. Mr. Banerjee appearing in support of the appeal refers to the evidence of P.W 2 to the effect that the editorials were published by both the accused and that both the accused were responsible for the comments therein and urged that this evidence in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned was not challenged in cross-examination. His further argument is that the respondent as the owner of the paper was responsible for the editorial policy thereof and that he was nowhere disassociated himself from the impugned publication. According to Mr. Baneriee the owner could not in the circumstances escape his liability under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code in this connection Mr. Baneriee also refers to an unreported decision in another case between the present appellant and the ore-sent respondent (Criminal Revn Case No. 964 of 1966, D/- 19-9-1967 (Cal)) wherein the order of discharge of the respondent by the learned magistrate in that case under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code has been set aside and the case has been sent back for further enquiry with the observation that—
“It is difficult to say that the proprietor and the member of the Advisory Committee (the present respondent) had no control over the paper or did not shape its policy and it is difficult to agree with the learned Judges view that in spite of being the proprietor and a member of the Advisory Committee he had no opportunity of influencing the publication if the defamatory matter”
4. The question before us is the extent of the liability of the owner for defamatory statements published in the paper owned by him. Under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, the person responsible for defamation is the person who
“by words either spoken or intended to be read x x x makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will hurt the reputation if such person.”
5. The owner in order to be liable under this section has to have direct responsibility for the publication of the defamatory statement and he must also have the intention to harm or knowledge or reason to believe that the imputation will harm the reputation of the person concerned. The owner of a journal qua-owner has thus no responsibility under the section The editor of the paper, even though he might not be directly responsible for a defamatory statement published in his paper attracts the responsibility by virtue of section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act by virtue of his registration as editor under the Act which registration is sufficient evidence that he was also the printer or publisher or printer and publisher of the paper concerned. The printer and publisher by virtue of their duties as such cannot of course avoid the legal liability for defamation. The owner's liability will be attracted provided it can be shown that he was responsible for the publication with the necessary intent, ??? reasonable belief in the matter.
6. I may refer in this connection to a Supreme Court decision (not vet published) in The State of Maharashtra v. Dr. R.B Chowdhari Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1965 dated April 19, 1967 (Since reported in AIR 1968 SC 110). In that case four persons who formed the Board of Editors of a journal were prosecuted for demafation of the Collector and District Magistrate of West Khandesh in the State of Bombay The trying magistrate framed a charge against the editor registered under section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act and discharged the three other members of the Board of Editors. This order of discharge having been confirmed by the High Court, the matter went up to the Supreme Court on appeal by special leave and the question that the Supreme Court had to consider was whether respondents nos 2, 3 and 4 in the appeal had liability for defamation under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code in the matter of the impugned publication by virtue of their office as members of the Board of Editors it was held that the editor registered under the Press and Registration of Books Act by virtue of the presumption that section 7 thereof carries against him would undoubtedly be liable for publication of the defamatory article, but the some presumption will not be Available against anybody else. The principle at the back of the decision is that the editor, printer and publisher qua such have their liability under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, but in order to make others liable there has to be evidence as to their direct complicity in the matter, that is, that they had published the matter concerned with the necessary intent, knowledge or reasonable belief in the matter.
7. The owner by appointing an editor for editing the paper vests him with the responsibility for running that paper and also for carrying out his policy in that matter. But, at the same time, the vesting of the responsibility means that the responsibility has to be carried out in a legal manner if in carrying out that responsibility the editor does anything illegal, that illegality should not be attributed to the owner by virtue of his being the owner of the journal. So far as the present case is concerned, there is no doubt that the evidence of P.W 2 referred to by Mr. Banerjee is material, but that merely is the opinion of the witness concerned. The basis for that opinion is not to be found in the evidence.
8. In view of the above, I would respectfully differ from the view of the learned Judge in the decision referred to by Mr. Banerjee and prefer to follow the unreported Supreme Court decision referred to above by me. Considering the principle behind this decision, I cannot find that the acquittal of the respondent in this case was unjustified. This appeal, accordingly, fails and it is dismissed.
AKJ/D.V.C
9. Appeal dismissed.
Alert