Why Himachal High Court refused to punish newspaper editor for ‘defaming’ IAS officer over corruption charges

Intention to harm is necessarily required to prove guilt of defamation, the court said.

Civil court findings prevail: court

• The court finds that the complainant attempted to carve out a case that he was defamed by the accused by publishing a false news item in the newspaper Him Himwanti.
• The complainant was unable to dispute that orders passed by him under the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act were later set aside by the divisional commissioner.
• Findings recorded by the civil court prevail until they are set aside by the higher court.
• It is not defamation to impute anything true concerning any person, if it is for the public good that the imputation should be made or published.
• Similarly, it is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatsoever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions. 
• Words “intended to be” used in Section 499 (defined defamation) of the IPC are very material to conclude defamation. 
• Intention to harm is necessarily required to prove guilt of defamation. 
• Good faith and bona fide belief are defences available to the accused charged with the offence of defamation. 
• In the present case, the accused has been able to probabilise a defence that he had a reasonable apprehension of the working of the complainant and, as such, in good faith for the public good, he had made a complaint to higher authorities. 
• The complainant failed to prove that the accused intentionally and without any basis published the news item and written letters to higher authorities, as a result of which, his reputation was damaged or badly maligned. 
• The court finds no illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (IV), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh and as such, the same is upheld. 

Defamation 

• Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, make or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said to defame that person, save and except few exceptions, as given in the aforesaid provision of law.
• Section 500 (punishment for defamation)of the IPC provides for punishment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
• In Section 499, the words “makes or publishes any 8 imputation” should be interpreted as words supplementing each other.

Damaged reputation 

• Divya Raj Singh, counsel for the appellant, contended that the court had made an error while passing the order, as the complainant to prove his case under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC had not been appreciated in the right perspective.
• He argued that the complainant had successfully established evidence that his reputation was damaged. 
• His reputation was hampered after the newspaper “Him Himwanti” accused him of corruption while he was serving as deputy commissioner, Sirmaur, at Nahan.
• Subsequently, complaints were filed against him before the governor and other senior officials of the Himachal Pradesh Government.
• Divya argued that witnesses clearly stated that the news report damaged the reputation of the complainant, who was otherwise known as an honest officer.
• He submitted that there was no occasion for the court to dismiss the complaint, and
  cognizance should be taken of the offences committed by the respondent under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC.

No defamation, at the hands of accused

• Sumit Sood, counsel representing the respondent, argued that no convincing evidence ever came to be led on by the complainant to prove defamation, if any, at the hands of the accused.
• He stated that the published news item, which was alleged to be defamatory, in the capacity of editor of Him Himwanti newspaper, was otherwise found true by the court based on evidence.
• He argued that there was no illegality in the court’s decision by dismissing the complaint. 
• He submitted that, besides filing a complaint before the court, the complainant also filed a suit for damages in the court, which was dismissed on September 30, 2009. 
• He stated that it was well settled that findings recorded by the court prevail until reversed by the appellate court, after duly considering the same and weighing the evidence afresh.

Background

• The complainant had initially joined the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services in the year 1977 and was subsequently inducted into the Indian Administrative Services on February 12, 1997. 
• While the complainant was serving as deputy commissioner, Sirmaur, acting as collector, decided three cases on December 24, 2001, under Section 118(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. 
• The complainant, on finding that the accused and his wife had seriously violated the law, ordered that the property be taken over by the State of Himachal Pradesh, free from all encumbrances.
• Allegedly, on account of the aforesaid decision rendered by him, the respondent, who is chief editor and publisher of “Him Himwanti Media Publication weekly Hindi”, published an article with a defamatory heading in his weekly paper.
• Him Himwanti in its publication wherein false allegations of corruption were levelled against him, which defamed him in the estimation of his colleagues, relatives, subordinates and the general public. 
• The complainant suffered mental agony as well as physical pain and filed a complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC in the court.
• The accused was issued a summons on May 5, 2003, and was granted bail after pleading not guilty.
• After considering all the facts and material on record, the court dismissed the complaint.
• Aggrieved by the decision, the complainant is seeking to set aside the aforementioned order and conviction of the accused under sections 499 and 500 of the IPC.