T.P. Natarajan vs K. Arumugham Pillai and Others

K.N. Mudaliyar, J.

Natarajan is the complainant-appellant herein. He questions the propriety of the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Pollachi requesting

the five respondents (A-1 to A-5) of the offence under S. 500, I. P. C.

The appellant Natarajan, was the Manager of the Co-operative Milk Supply Society. Pollachi. A-1 and A-2 are the President and Secretary of

the said society. A-3 to A-5 are the directors of the said Milk society.

The grievance of the appellant is that due to certain malpractices and mismanagement of the affairs of the Society some misunderstandings and ill

will resulted between him and the first two accused-respondents. He resigned his post on 28th September. 1968 (D-14). But he was dismissed by

the Board of Directors of the Society without proper enquiry. Not being satisfied with the dismissal, the five accused-respondents caused the

publication of the following defamatory matter in the ''Malelmurasu'' newspaper dated 9th March, 1969.

(As it came to be known that Thiru T.P. Natarajan who was working as the manager in the aforesaid society had committed, many kinds of

offences, acquired wealth of his own using the name of the said society with selfish motive, orders have been passed dismissing him from the

managership of the said Society from 17th February, 1969. This may be hereby taken notice of).

... ... ...

The impugned matter Ex. P-12 has been published by the directors of the Society as per the resolution of the Board of directors in Ex. P-18 giving

the reasons for passing the said resolution.

The learned Magistrate further found that the appellant was misusing his position as the Manager of the Society and brought about loss to the

society which must have resulted in the wrongful gain to the appellant. None of these findings has been challenged before this Court.

The only argument submitted by Mr. P.M. Sundaram, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the impugned publication is rather excessive in that

the it came to be published in a Tamil daily ''Malaimurasu'' and such an excessive amount of publication is unnecessary and therefore his reputation

has been injured.

In paragraph 33 of the judgment, the learned Magistrate found that the appellant admitted that he could not have acquired these things, viz.,

houses, taxi and the ice plant from the meagre income by way of his salary from the milk society. It must have been therefore the result of his illegal

means and unfair practices.

The resolution, Ex. P. 18, gives the reason for publishing Ex. P. 12. It states that the public could be still under the wrong belief that P.W. 1 was

still the manager of the milk society and they are, therefore, liable to pay him the dues to the Society and that there was therefore an absolute need

for passing the resolution and publishing it to safeguard the interest of the directors of the Society. Therefore, the publication contains nothing but

truth for the public good, done with due care and caution and with good faith. The learned Magistrate found on the facts proved in this case by the

defence that exceptions 1and 9 would clearly avail the accused, respondents.

Mr. P.M. Sundaram, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the method of publication of Ex. P. 12 in ""Malaimurasu"" must be held to be

excessive and therefore it destroys the privilege of the appellant. He relied on the rationale found in paragraph 5 of the judgment of a Division

Bench in State v. Packiraj 52 Cri.L.J. 1951 page 623 at p. 624. In the peculiar circumstance of that case, the learned Judges held that a

representation to the Government of what accused 2 came to know in the course of the proceedings could have been sufficient to protect the

interests of the persons concerned or of the public, for the Government was the authority invested with the power of taking disciplinary action

against the complainant if he resorted to the illegal practice complained of in the letter. But here is a society in the instant case where the members

and the consumers of milk ought to be posted with the fact of the removal or dismissal of the appellant with very good reasons in support of the

same. After considering the rationale found in the judgment of this Court in the cases in Talamgare Manmunni v. Abdul Rahman AIR 1949 Mad.

624 Queen v. Vidya Sankara Narasimaa 6 Mad. 381 Thiagaraya v. Krishnaswami 15 Mad. 214, Vinayak v. Shantaram AIR 1941 Bom. 410 and

in Emperor v. Col. Bholanath 51 All. 513 I have no hesitation in finding thereafter the exercise of due care and attention, the accused respondents

published the truth in good faith and for public good.

Mr. K. Ramaswami, advocate for the respondents relied oa the two authorities reported in Harbhajan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, and in Chaman

Lal Vs. The State of Punjab, and contended that the two exceptions 1 and 9 would avail the accused-respondents and that the findings given by

the learned Magistrate based on the proved facts of the case are correct and proper: In view of my rejecting the argument of the learned counsel

for the appellant about the excessive publication, I have no hesitation in affirming the findings of the trial Magistrate, it is unnecessary for me to

reiterate the reasons given by the learned Magistrate in supper of the findings, for I express my entire agreement with the reasons given in support

of the findings and the findings also. This is an appeal without any merit. The criminal appeal No. 14 of 1970 is dismissed.