K M CHERIAN Vs. D JOHNSON COMPLAINANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in Calendar Case 7 of 1968 on the file of the District Magistrate, Trivandrum are the revision petitioners. THEy are the Chief Editor, Managing Editor, and Printer and Publisher, respectively of the MALAYALA MANORAMA, a Malayalam daily published from Kottayam. THE complainant in the case is one Johnson, the proprietor of a betel nut shop just to the south of the Secretariat, Trivandrum. He sued the accused under S.500 of the Penal Code alleging that a news item published in the MALAYALA MANORAMA dated October 31, 1967 was calculated to injure his reputation and to lower him in the eyes of the public. THE news item arose in the following circumstances:

(2.) A gold chain and a sum of Rs. 153/-belonging to Smt. Miranda Mary, a lady clerk of the Secretariat and kept by her in her office-table, were stolen on 28 10 1967 and in that connection a peon of the Secretariat by name Kuttan Nadar was arrested and on the information furnished by him the gold chain was recovered from a bucket in front of a tea shop into which waste materials were dumped, and the money (Rs. 153) from the complainant's betel nut shop. In connection with this, the local reporter of the MALAYALA MANORAMA published the news Ext. P4 (a) wherein it was stated that the amount was recovered from Johnson another peon of the Secretariat to whom it was entrusted by Kuttan.This news appeared in the MALAYALA MANORAMA dated October 29. 1967. This was followed by another report in the MALAYALA MANORAMA dated 31st October 1967 by way of a correction in which it was stated that Johnson referred to in the previous report was not a peon of the Secretariat, but a betel nut shop-keeper near the Secretariat. This report is marked Ext. P1 (a). Then a third report was also published in connection with the same matter and that is Ext. D4 (a)which appeared in the MALAYALA MANORAMA dated 3rd December 1967. That was by way of a clarification wherein it was stated that the betel nut shopkeeper Johnson, stated to have been arrested in the previous report, was not arrested in fact but only questioned by the police and made a witness for the prosecution. Exception was taken by the complainant mainly in respect of Ext. P1(a) report, in which it was stated that of the persons arrested in connection with the theft from the lady clerk's table, Johnson was not a peon of the Secretariat but was a betel nut shop-keeper near the Secretariat This report was published under the caption in bold type "tamjvSmhv ]yqW". This report according to the complainant has injured his reputation in so far as he was depicted as a thief and that he was arrested by the police. His case is that he was not in fact arrested but only questioned by the police. In the case taken in connection with the theft also, he was only a witness and not the accused. On these allegations the complaint was filed. Before the filing of the complaint a notice was issued to the accused by the complainant's lawyer and in reply to that notice, Ext. P2 was sent by the accused. In Ext. P2, the allegation that the report was intended to harm the complainant's reputation was denied, and that the accused had no intention of injuring the complainant's reputation. The accused also expressed their regret in the following terms:

(3.) THERE is also the further aspect that injury to reputation can come in, only in the case of a person who has reputation. The complainant here, was characterised as a liar in the case (C. C. 2896/67 which was taken against Kuttan, copy of the judgment being Ex-D5). To quote the learned Magistrate's own words in that case: "On a careful analysis of the evidence of pw. 4 it is clear that he cannot be believed for a moment and hence I discard his testimony as false." Such a person cannot complain of loss or injury to reputation. His reputation even if any he had, has suffered a serious blow by the above pronouncement and thereafter his reputation could not but have been at a very low ebb.