PRATIBHA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE news item "shasnala Lutnari Lady Doctor" (Lady Doctor who duped the Government) published in Marathi daily newspaper 'lokmat' in its edition dated 13-12-1978 which according to the appellant - complainant (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") has harmed the reputation and defamed her, has given rise to the criminal action by her against the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as "the accused persons" ). The complaint filed by the complainant under Sections 500, 501 and 502 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons, who at the relevant time were Chief Editor, Printer and Publisher, and Acting Editor of 'lokmat' respectively was tried in Criminal Case No. 2269 of 1978 (Dr. Mrs. Pratibha Prabhakar Gulhane v. Jawaharlal Darda and others) in the Court of Chief Judicial, Magistrate, Nagpur, who vide his judgment dated 29-6-1989 has acquitted all the three accused persons for the said offence under Sections 500, 501, and 502 read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code. Dissatisfied with the judgment of acquittal dated 29-6-1989 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur, the complainant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE Marathi daily newspaper 'lokmat' published from Nagpur, published the following news item in its edition dated 13-12-1978, which in translation in English reads as under :

(3.) THE complainant filed the complaint on 28-12-1978 under Sections 500, 501, and 502 read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur against the seven persons. The present respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were impleaded as original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the said complaint. The other accused persons impleaded in the complaint were Ramgopal Maheshwari, Chief Editor, Nav Bharat, Vinod Maheshwari, Shailandra Kumar and Satish Sathe. However the accused Nos. 4 to 7 were discharged by an order dated 9-3-1979. In the said complaint, the complainant alleged that at the relevant time she was a public servant working as Senior Medical Officer (Class I) at Daga Memorial Govt. Hospital, Nagpur. According to the complainant, the original accused Nos. 1 to 3, edited, printed and published the aforesaid news item (Exh. 103) in their newspaper daily 'lokmat' published on 13-12-1978 making imputations against the complainant giving her name and other details amounting to defamation, namely, -- (i) that one Dr. Pratibha Gulhane, a Senior Medical Officer (Post-Partum Programme) at the Daga Hospital, Nagpur, has duped the Government by presenting T. A. Bill. This has come to know from the letter No. M. M. H. S.- 80-2/t. A. Bill/p. P. G. /5445/1977 sent from the Medical College Hospital; (ii) Smt. Gulhane was transferred from Akola to Daga Hospital, Nagpur at her own request and according to the government rules no transfer T. A. is granted in such cases, and (iii) It is reliably learnt that a complaint from Kacheri Sawanga and Nagpur has already been sent to the Ministry of Health to the effect that Smt. Gulhane takes undue advantage of her position for her selfish motu. " The complainant alleged that the said imputations were published with an intention to harm the reputation of the complainant and with the knowledge that the said imputations would harm the reputation of the complainant. It was also alleged by the complainant that the said news item has caused irreparable loss and harm to her reputation in the eyes of superior officers in the Department particularly and the public at large. The complainant also asserted that the said news items was defamatory and totally false, libelous and mischievous to the knowledge of the editor, printer and publisher. It was also alleged by the complainant that she has served the legal notice on the accused persons. The complainant also averred in the complaint that she had made a reasonable claim in her T. A. Bills permissible under the rules, which were ultimately accepted and passed by the competent authorities, namely, Treasury Officer, Nagpur, and Accountant General Maharashtra-II, Nagpur. The complainant also alleged that the contents of the news item were full of personal imputations against her and she had a reasonable belief that the information must have been obtained by committing theft of an official record/papers from the personal file which indicated the letter number in the news item appearing in the daily Lokmat dated 13-12-1978 pertaining to the complaint or the letters pertaining to the complainant must have been obtained with connivance of the office staff or that the information with full details must have been supplied by the staff having an ill-will against the complainant.