MUNICIPAL BOARD Vs. GANESH PRASAD CHATURVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision raises an interesting point of law. The Municipal Board of Konch in the district of Jalaun brought a complaint; against Ganesh Prasad, applicant under Section 500, Penal Code, alleging that by issuing certain leaflets the applicant had defamed the Board. The trying Magistrate held Ganesh Prasad guilty and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 200 or in default to three months' simple imprisonment. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge held : "That no public body created under law can maintain a prosecution for any criticisms against it even if that criticism is not fair." He examined the case on merits also and arrived at the conclusion that the criticisms levelled by Ganesh Prasad against the administration of the Board was not unfair. In the result, he allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that Section 499, Penal Code, entitled any person, whose reputation has been damaged, to maintain a complaint for defamation. He has invited, my attention to Section 11, Penal Code, according to which, 'the word 'person' means any Company or Association, or body of persons, whether incorporated or not." Reference has also been made to explanation 2 of Section 499 which provides : 'It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such". Learned counsel for the applicant has also referred to Ankaraju Subbaraya v. Batuk Prasad, A.i.r. (24) 1937 ALL. 677, in which it was held that: "If a well defined class is defined, each and every member of that class can file a complaint. In other cases the defamatory words must refer to some ascertained and ascertainable person and that person must be the complainant." This authority is of no help to the Municipal Board, Konch, because it does not lay down that a statutory body like the Municipal Board can maintain a complaint for defamation. It lays down only that individual members of the Board can file a complaint. That is not the position here.

(3.) On behalf of the opposite, party reliance is placed upon the Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of Manchester v. Williams, (1891) 1 Q. B. 94. It was held in that case that in an action for libel brought by a corporation, the statement of claim complained that the defendant had charged the plaintiffs with corrupt practices. It contained no allegation that the plaintiffs had suffered any special pecuniary damage in consequence of such imputation. It was held that inasmuch as a corporation, as distinguished from the individuals composing it, cannot be guilty of corrupt practices, the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action. Learned Sessions Judge has relied upon Maung Chit Tay v. Maung Tun Nyun, A.I.R. (22) 1985 Rang. 108, in which it was held that a corporation may maintain a prosecution or an action for a libel affecting its property, but not for a libel merely affecting personal reputation, as a corporation has no reputation apart from its property or trade. The words complained of must reflect on the management of its business and must injuriously affect the corporation, as distinct from the individuals who compose it. The alleged libel must attack the corporation in its method of conducting its affairs, must accuse it of fraud or mismanagement, or must attack its financial position. It cannot bring a prosecution for words which merely affect its honour or dignity. Moreover, it cannot maintain a prosecution for words which reflect not upon it as a body, but upon its members individually, unless damage has thereby been caused to it.