ABDURAHIMAN Vs. PRADEEP MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant is the appellant, He was the Volley Ball Coach of Calicut University. First accused Pradeep Menon was the Chairman, Calicut University Union and the second accused Joseph was the General Secretary of the Kerala Students Union. Third accused P.V. Chandran is the Printer and Publisher of Mathrubhoomi Daily. Prosecution was for offences under S.500 and 501(a) of the Indian Penal Code. It was in connection with a news item that came in the front page of the issue of Mathrubhoomi dated 30-9-1982 making certain defamatory imputations against the appellant and suggesting that be may be suspended. The news item was published as if it came from accused 1 and 2. The imputation is that the appellant misused his official position in attempting to secure admission for his daughter for the second group to the Pre degree course in the Providence Women's College, Calicut under sports quota by producing bogus certificates. The Magistrate acquitted the accused on the finding that the publication is justified under exception 9 to S.499 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The authorship of the publication is owned by accused 1 and 2 and its publication is admitted by the 3rd accused. The imputations are per se defamatory against the appellant. The plea is only that the publication will not amount to defamation on account of the applicability of exceptions 1 and 9 to S.499.

(3.) The sum and substance of the defamatory imputation is that misusing his position as Coach and the sports quota, be produced more than ten false certificates including one of participation in the National games at Parur in order to secure admission to his daughter Suhra who secured only the very poor mark of 239 and on the basis of these certificates, the Principal has written to the Vice Chancellor requesting for admission to Suhra in sports quota. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant are: (i) The correctness of the entire imputations including the submission of more than 10 false certificates will have to be established, and (ii) Even then the benefit of 9th exception is not available because it applies only to an expression of opinion regarding character and not to assertions of fact which are in themselves defamatory.