(1) Three principal characters figure in this case. The first is sri endamuri veerendranath, the author of tulasi dalam, a controversial novel written in telugu. The second is the complainant, dr. Kommuri venugopala rao, the author of the foreword to the novel. The third is the petitioner - accused, a lady. All the three are well - known novelists in telugu and each of them has to his or her credit a number of novels. All the three have attained a place of pride amongst novelists in telugu.
(2) Tulasi dalam was first published as a serial in andhra bhoomi, a telugu weekly. The serial attracted a large number of readers. The circulation of the telugu weekly had also gone up during the relevant period. Later sri veerendranath published her novel in the form of a book. Dr. Kommuri venugopala rao contributed his foreword to the novel. But the novel and the foreword came in for bitter criticism, at the hands of the petitioner, and the criticism titled as : (this matter being in telugu we regret that we have to omit it here as we have no facilities for printing telugu - ed.) was also published as a serial in andhra prabha, a telugu daily, aggrieved by some of the words, expressions, statements and remarks made by the petitioner against dr. Kommuri venugopala rao, the latter prosecuted the former before the learned ii additional judicial first magistrate, vijayawada, on a charge of defamation. Though the editor and the printer were first prosecuted along with the petitioner, they were given up later as they tendered apology to the complainant, dr. Kommuri venugopala rao. The learned magistrate found the petitioner guilty of the charge. He did not however choose to inflict any sentence of imprisonment taking into consideration her frail health. Only a sentence of rs. 1,000. 00 was imposed on her. On appeal preferred by her, the conviction and the sentence were confirmed by the ii addl. Sessions judge, krishna division at vijayawada. Assailing both the judgments, the above criminal revision case is filed.
(3) It is unnecessary to extract the impugned defamatory words, expressions, statements and remarks used or employed by the petitioner as the same are set out in extenso in both the judgments of the courts below. On a careful perusal of the criticism levelled against p. W. 1, i am convinced that the words (datru) and (kshudurudu) , among other words, expressions, statements and remarks used by the petitioner are per se defamatory and that the same are calculated to harm the reputation of the complainant. In fact the oral evidence let in by the complainant satisfactorily established that his reputation was lowered down in the eyes of the public by reason of the impugned criticism.
(4) A plain reading of the criticism however convinces me that no words of praise are showered on the author of the novel by the complainant.
(5) The petitioner, however, invokes, in defence, exceptions 6 and 9 enacted in s. 499 ipc. It is that both the novel written by sri. Yandamuri veerandranath and the foreword contributed by the complainant are exposed to the judgment of the public and any opinion respecting the merits either of the novel or the foreword, if made in good faith, does not amount to defamation. It is equally true that any imputation on the character of any person, if made in good faith and for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good, does not also amount to defamation.
(6) The question which therefore arises for consideration is whether the defamatory words referred to supra were employed by the petitioner in good faith ? to my mind, the answer is emphatically in the negative. That part of the criticism of the petitioner employing the two defamatory words is wholly unrelated to the contents of the foreword contributed by the complainant and is born out of anything but good faith. I am also clear in my mind that malice of the petitioner towards the complainant is writ large on the impugned defamatory words presumably on account of as much popularity if not more gained by the complainant as the petitioner amongst the readers of telugu novels. Good faith ends where malice begins. The defamatory words cannot also be said to have been made for the public good. The petitioner is therefore not protected either under the sixth exception or under the ninth exception. The concurrent finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner by both the courts below is therefore unassailable. The sentence of fine awarded to the petitioner being very lenient does not also call for any interference.
(7) The criminal revision case is accordingly dismissed.
(8) Revision dismissed.
Comments