GEORGE Vs. K V JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the complainant in C.C. 234 of 1981 of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. The complaint has been filed against the respondents (A1 to A4) under S.500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant's case is that accused 1 to 4 published in the Sunday edition of the "Kerala Times" daily known as "Sathyanadam", a news item which is per se defamatory to him. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held that the news item would come within the purview of 4th exception to S.499 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused are entitled to the protection thereof.

(2.) The complainant has produced a copy of the news item published in Sathyanadam on 9-8-1981. The complainant examined as P.W.1 deposed that the news item (Ext. P2) is a distorted version of the judgment in M.C. 21 of 1980 filed by his wife for maintenance against him before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Cochin. PWs 2 and 3 deposed that they read Ext. P2 news item and found it objectionable. Accused 1 to 4 have not disputed that they printed and published Ext. P2 news item in respect of Ext. P1 order in C.C. 234 of 1981 of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Cochin. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held that there is ample evidence on record to show that the accused printed and published Ext. P-2 news item.

(3.) The point to be considered is as to whether Ext. P2 news item is defamatory to the complainant and whether the accused can invoke the benefit of the 4th exception to S.499 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant's wife had filed M.C. 21 of 1980 against him claiming maintenance. Ext. P1 is the certified copy of the order in M.C. 21 of 1980. The maintenance case was filed by the complainant's wife on the allegation that her husband is impotent and unable to perform sexual intercourse and that he had ill treated her. The learned Magistrate held in Ext. Pl order that the wife's allegation that her husband is impotent is not supported by any evidence. It is also mentioned in Ext. Pl order that at the time of argument the wife's counsel did not press the allegation of impotency. The maintenance application was allowed only on the ground of cruelty. The order in M.C. 21 of 1980 was passed on 31-7-1981. Ext. P2 was published on 9-8-1981. In Ext. P-2 it is stated that the Magistrate has held that the complainant has no genital organ and that he should pay maintenance to his wife.