SUMATIBAI VINAYAK DEO Vs. NANDKUMAR DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by special leave takes exceptions to the acquittal of respondents 1 and 2 hereinafter referred to as "deshpande" and "tawasalkar" respectively, who were prosecuted for the commission of an offence punishable under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE admitted position is that Deshpande was the Editor and owner of a Marathi daily "yugant" published from Alibag in District Raigad. Tawasalkar was a Sub-editor of the said paper. Appellant complainant, hereinafter referred to as "sumatibai" was the subject of an article published in Yugant dated 18 July, 1977. To be brief, the article accused her of being authoritarian, arbitrary, extortionist, misappropriator of bowls and donations, making false reports to the Police, greedy, rude and insulting, and using the School started by her institution as a milch cow. After reading this item, Sumatibai addressed a notice to Deshpande calling upon him to publish an apology and also pay damages of Rs. 5000/ -. The communication was received by Tawasalkar, who intimated that Deshpande was out of station and that a reply would be given as and when he returned. Deshpande gave neither a reply nor published an apology nor paid damages. For that reason Sumatibai lodged a complaint against Deshpande and Tawasalkar in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Pen. Complainant averred that the imputations contained in the article of 18 July, 1977 were false and had the effect of lowering her in the eyes of her friends and acquaintances. Deshpande and Tawasalkar though given an opportunity to make amends had not done so and therefore, they were guilty of having committed an offence punishable under section 500 r/w. 34 I. P. C.

(3.) DESHPANDE and Tawasalkar pleaded not guilty. Sumatibai examined herself and one Gogate to establish that the imputations made in the article were false and had affected her prestige adversely. Deshpande examined Mrs. Walke and one Ambre. The learned Magistrate held that Tawasalkar was not in any way connected with the publication of the article and his merely sending a provisional rely to the notice of the complainant on behalf of Deshpande would not render him liable for the impugned publication. As to Deshpande, he was held protected because of the substantial truth of the imputations made in the article-this being published in the public interest and in relation to a matter which affected the public vitally. So holding, the learned Magistrate acquitted both the accused.