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 Ss. 500 and 501 (a) of the indian Penal Code. It was in connection with a news item that came in the from page of the issue of Mathrubhoomi dated 30-9-1982 making certain defamatory imputations against the appellant and suggesting that the may be suspended. The news item was published as if it came from accused 1 and 2. The imputation is that he 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.) FREEDOM of expression in good faith for self protection or for public good is essential in the interest of an orderly society and for its advancement. At the same time that should not pass on to the region of character assassination. A glaring example of deciding the border line in an attempt to trace'good faith'in the defence based on exception 9 to S. 499 could be found in Haribajan Singh v. State of Punjab and another 1966 Crl. L. J. 82. Press notes came connecting the son of the then Punjab chief Minister Mr. Pratap Singh Kairon with smuggling activities. The government felt irritated and issued press release denying the imputation and challenging anybody concerned to come up with the name of the son and reap the consequences. The accused took up the challenge and said that Surinder Singh (Complainant ) , son of the Chief Minister is the person involved and he is one of the leaders of the smugglers. The further allegation was that he is also responsible for a large number of crimes being committed, but it eases are always shelved up because the culprit happens to be the Chief Minister's son. In the prosecution for defamation his defence under Exception 9 was rejected for rashness and want of good faith. Conviction was confirmed by the High Court though sentence was reduced.