Brief Facts
- The Appellant, the owner of a daily newspaper faced prosecution for criminal defamation under Section 500 of the IPC. The Respondent-Complainant filed a complaint claiming that the Appellant allowed the defamatory news article to be published titled “Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj” in his newspaper, without verifying the facts, thereby damaging the reputation of the Appellant. After recording the statements under section 200 and 202 of CrPC, the Magistrate rejected the Complaint.
- However, the Respondent’s revision was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The Appellant’s challenge to this order which was dismissed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and thus, the Appellant approached the Apex Court.
Issues
- Whether the publication of the news article in the appellant’s newspaper, Sunday Blast, was defamatory and whether it warranted prosecution under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for criminal defamation?
- Whether the publication made by the Appellant was in furtherance of the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India?
Held
- Apex Court allowed the appeal and resorted the order passed by the Magistrate Court.
- Having considered the entirety of the material available on record, we find that the order dated 12th June, 2017 passed by the learned Magistrate First Class, Hoshangabad rejecting the complaint of the respondent-complainant is a well-reasoned order. The learned Magistrate in its order referred to the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and held that the publication in question did not warrant prosecution of the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. We are also of the view that the news article in question was published in good faith and in exercise of the Fundamental Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. As an upshot of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be termed to be illegal or unjustified warranting interference by the High Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.
Relevant Paras
- 8, 9