SALENA DANDASI Vs. GAJJALA MALLA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.11/1987 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, had preferred this appeal. The respondents- defendants are Editor - Andhra Bhumi and the Publisher - Andhra Bhumi,Visakhapatnam. For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as shown in O.S.No.11/87 aforesaid.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation or damages with subsequent interest at 6% per annum and for costs of the suit. The claim made by the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants and the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4 and ultimately came to the conclusion that inasmuch as it was clearly established that there is no personal malice between the parties and inasmuch as the publication was made in good faith, the plaintiff is not entitled to the claim and accordingly dismissed the suit without costs. Hence, the appeal.

(3.) Contentions of Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy:- Sri V.L.N.G.K.Murthy, the learned Counsel representing appellant-plaintiff had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the trial Court and would maintain that the approach of the trial Court is totally erroneous. The Counsel also would maintain that even as per the evidence of D.W.1, there was no proper verification of the facts before proceeding with the publication and at least the same had not been verified by putting the plaintiff, a responsible Advocate, on notice. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the facts would go to show that there was no arrest as on the date of the publication and also further the facts would go to show that the publication made that Harizan woman had been raped also is a false statement. Definitely, there was no diligence on the part of the respondents-defendants in verification of facts and imputation of a fact without verification and publication thereof cannot be a pardonable wrong. The Counsel also pointed out to the responsible journalism and the duties and the obligations on the part of the Publisher and the Editor of a newspaper. The Counsel also maintained that there can be malice in Law though not malice in fact. The learned Counsel also pointed out certain portions of Ex.A.4 - the certified copy of the Judgment in S.C.No.47/86 on the file of Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikakulam and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances it is clear that it is a case where the respondents negligently and recklessly without proper verification of the facts made serious defamatory allegations as against a responsible Advocate and hence the findings recorded by the trial Court that the plaintiff had not sustained any loss also cannot be sustained since these serious allegations may affect his reputation in the society. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the relevant portions of the evidence of P.W.1 and also D.W.1 and further placed strong reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.