SHYAM NARAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT Shyam Narain is the Editor and Publisher of a weekly newspaper "jagrati" from Kota, In its issue oil December 19. 1964 he published an open letter addressed to the Minister for Local Self Government. Raiasthan. Jaipur. The author of the letter was Badri Prasad. The Editor's comment was that Badri Prasad had failed to get justice from the administrator of the Municipal Corporation, Kota, and. therefore, the correspondent was compelled to write this open letter to the Minister. The letter contained defamatory allegations against Ayodhyanath Chaturvedi. Prosecuting Inspector. Municipal Council. Kota. He instituted a complaint under Section 500 I. P. C. against Shyam Narain. With Badri Prasad the complainant Ayodhya Nath Chaturvedi compromised the matter at the appellate stage and the sons of Shyam Narain tendered apology which was accepted and the matter was compromised It was not disputed that the allegations contained in that letter in regard to Ayodhya Nath Chaturvedi were per se defamatory. Shyam Narain also did not dispute that he published it. The contents of the letter, very briefly stated, were that Ayodhya Nath had constructed a house against the approved plan; that he had illegally occupied 1000 sq. feet of Government land without paying any rent; that he had trespassed on the Government land while constructing his house; that his relations had constructed house without approved plans and that he as the Prosecutor of the Municipal Corporation suppressed these complaints and that Ayodhya Nath had removed the files of several persons from the Corporation and instituted false cases against them in the court, etc. Shyam Narain pleaded that he had published the letter in the public interest and the allegations were true. He failed to prove the exception. The learned Additional Mun-siff-Magistrate First Class No. 3 Kota, by his judgment dated September 13. 1967 convicted Shyam Narain and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 8 months. Against this judgment an appeal was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge. Baran, who dismissed it without altering the sentence. Dissatisfied Shyam Narain is before me.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the applicant submits that a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 8 months is illegal because Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code makes defamation punishable only with simple imprisonment. His second submission is that the accused was 60 years of age in 1966 when he was examined and he is now of 68 years. The defamatory article was published in the year 1964 and this controversy has been languishing for 10 years. The accused-applicant has already undergone 13 days' rigorous imprisonment when he was himself not the author of the Letter and his editorial comment cannot be characterised as malicious. He submits that the sentence already undergons by him is sufficient in the circumstances of this case.

(3.) MR. H. P. Gupta urged that the applicant has not shown any repentence and in fact endeavoured to justify the contents of the defamatory letter and on this account he deserves no leniency.