KANHAIYALAL KHADIWALA Vs. VISHWANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are four appeals, all by Kanhaiyalal Khadiwala, against a judgment, July 29, 1964 and an order, September 29,1964, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) in the following circumstances. The Appellant was elected to Parliament from Indore Constituency in 1957. The Respondent Vishwanath was the editor and publisher in 1960 of a monthly journal called "Sarita" printed and published at New Delhi. In the January issue of "Sarita" in that year there appeared an article under the heading "Sansada Sadasya Shri Chadarwala" and the writer's name was given as Chaturbhuj Mourya. The journal also carried a caricature of Khadiwala. The article described a person elected to Parliament from a city having a name 'N' who was president of an All India Conference of his party, of a Women's Conference and of a Mahila Vidya Ashram. The article described his appearance, his clothes, his manner of speech and went on to charge him with trying to make free with girls, with having used his official position to his own] advantage in a variety of ways, and to make money by diverse acts which it is not necessary to specify. The article was per se defamatory and it has rightly been so found.

(2.) KHADIWALA was of opinion that the article referred to him and defamed him. He served a notice on Vishwanath to disclose the real name of the writer of the article but as Vishwanath declined to do so, or to apologise and make amends, Khadiwala filed a complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against him as the editor, printer and publisher of the journal containing the defamatory article. The case was strenuously defended and Khadiwala was subjected to a long and searching cross -examination in respect of the statements in the article. The attempt was to establish that the allegations were true. However, in his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Vishwanath only pleaded that the article referred to no person in particular and was intended to hold up to public ridicule politicians who make the best of political opportunities to feather their nests and that any resemblance to Khadiwala was purely coincidental.

(3.) VISHWANATH appealed from the conviction and sentence and the Additional Sessions Judge who heard the appeal set aside the conviction and sentence and ordered a retrial. He reached this conclusion because the Magistrate had spoken of the character and integrity of Khadiwala in fulsome terms and the Session Judge was of opinion that the Magistrate was influenced by personal interest. Khadiwala had also applied to the Sessions Judge seeking enhancement of the sentence but his application necessarily failed when the conviction was set aside. Both sides went up in revision to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge was reversed and he was directed to hear and dispose of the appeal of Vishwanath and the application of Khadiwala on merits. The appeal was then heard and dismissed. The sentence of imprisonment was reduced to simple imprisonment for six months. The sentence of one year was illegal. The application of Khadiwala for enhancement of sentence failed automatically.