T KUNHAMBU Vs. A SOJATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The printer and publisher of a daily newspaper was prosecuted for the offence of defamation. She was acquitted by the trial magistrate and hence the complainant has come up in appeal. The complainant is the President of Cannanore Cooperative Clinic and Nursing Home Society. The newspaper in which the imputations were published has circulation in and around Cannanore where the hospital run by the Society is situate. The imputations were published in the Readers' column of the newspaper in the name of "a well wisher". There is no dispute that the accused is the publisher of the newspaper, nor has the publication been disowned except saying that the name of "well wisher" is Sri. Karunakaran.

(2.) The imputations were published under the caption "Enquiry must be held into the affairs of the Cooperative Hospital". The publication, as a letter to the editor, mentions about the functioning of the Cooperative hospital of which, the complainant is the President. The following are the three main imputations about which the complainant has serious grievance. (1) The consequence of Kunhambu's (complainant) holding the post of Presidentship and the Manager's administration of the hospital is that a large number of embezzlements are taking place in the hospital. (2) The allotment of night duty to nurses in the hospital is now made at the whims and convenience of the President and Manager of the hospital. One particular nurse is being harassed by compelling her to attend night-duty on all days. (3) The President is in the habit of giving his signature on the vouchers prepared to suit the needs of the person who prepares them. This practice of the President would lead the hospital to doldrums.

(3.) Learned magistrate acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the imputations have not been incorporated in the body of the complaint. Learned magistrate has also observed that the publication is justified although it has slightly transgressed the limit. Reference has been made to the decision of Padmanabhan, J. in Madhavi Amma v. Sherief ( 1985 KLT 330 ) in support of the conclusion that the complaint is defective inasmuch as it did not incorporate at least the questioned portions of the publication. In the said decision, the learned Judge has extracted the averments made in the complaint in that case and held that "a mere reading of the complaint alone will not impress anybody that the publications were defamatory to any extent and that it goes without saying that the complaint by itself does not make out a cause of action at all".