AMAR NATH VERMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Amar Nath against his conviction under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and a sentence of fine of Rs. 150/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He is Editor, Printer and Publisher of the Magazine known as 'Textile' and in that capacity published and article Exhibit P.E. in the issue of his paper for the months of November-December, 1963, which amongst other things also stated that K.K. Prashar Factory Inspector, Amritsar, was haughtly and unsympathetic towards the factory-owners and would seek every opportunity to prosecute them in the Court of law. Thereupon the Public Prosecutor, Amritsar, after obtaining necessary sanction of the State Government under clause (c) sub-section (3), Section 98B, Code of Criminal Procedure filed a complaint under Section 500 read with Section 501, Indian Penal Code, against Amar Nath alleging that the article contained statement defamatory of K.K. Prashar Factory Inspector Amritsar and that he had reason to believe that such an article would harm his reputation, English translation of the article referred to above was also filed along with the complaint.

(2.) The Accused-Appellant admitted that he was Editor and Printer of Magazine known as 'Textile' published in Urdu from Amritsar. He also admitted that the article Exhibit P.E. was published by him in the said Magazine. He denied having defamed K.K. Prashar by publishing the article as he neither know nor had reason to believe that the application of such an article would harm the reputation of K.K. Prashar. He is said to have published the article in good faith and in the interest of public.

(3.) B.K. Gupta P.W. 1 proved the sanction Exhibit P.A. granted by the Home Minister for prosecution of the appellant for publishing article P.E. in his magazine. K.K. Prashar P.W. 2, Inspector gave out that he was neither haughtly nor his attitude towards the factory-owners was unsympathetic. He further said that in his life no factory owner was harassed or unnecessarily prosecuted by him. He went on to say that after the publication of the article his respect in the eyes of his friends had been lowered. Om Parkash Gupta, Assistant District Nazir, P.W. 3 proved that the Accused-Appellant was Editor, Printer, publisher and owner of the monthly Magazine known as 'Textile'. His statement is based on Exhibit P.E. copy of the declaration filed by the accused appellant in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Amritsar Maharaj Singh Labour Inspector P.W. 4 and Hari Kishan Slotra, another Labour Inspector P.W. 5 both deposed that after reading the article they formed poor opinion about K.K. Prashar's performance as a public servant. In rebuttal Gopal Krishan D.W. 1 Factory owner, Amritsar, said that K.K. Prashar, Factory Inspector visited his factory about two years back and asked him to produce various registers which he declined to do as he thought that his establishment was not a 'factory' as the term is defined in the Factories Act. Thereupon, the Inspector is said to have threatened him with a prosecution. He proved letter Exhibit D.A/1 dated the 10th October, 1963, written by him to the accused appellant which inter alia mentions that the Factory Inspector was a proud and unsympatheic public servant and that this fact should be brought to the notice of the Public by publishing an article in in his paper. Brahm Nath D.W. 2 is author of books in Urdu and is also a prize winner for publishing such books. In his opinion the words 'Ghair Hamdardana' means un-accommodating and the word 'Magrur' means a person who lacks humility. In his cross examination he said that after reading the article Exhibit P.E. he did not form bad opinion about K.K. Prashar Factory Inspector. Sham Lal Deputy Labour Commissioner D.W. 3 said that he received complaints from (1) Balram, Press Reporter, Gobindgarh, dated the 1st December, 1961 and, (2) Harbans Singh and seven others against the Factory Inspector K.K. Prashar's behaviour towards the factory owners. He also conceded that an enquiry was made against the Factory Inspector by Harbans Raj Singh, Joint Labour Commissioner, but no action was taken against him. He admitted in his cross examination that after reading the article he formed an adverse opinion about the Factory Inspector K.K. Prashar's efficiency. The trial Judge from the above concluded that article Exhibit P.E. per se was defamatory and that the Accused-Appellant did not publish the article in good faith and for the public good.