Vijaydhari Kumar vs State of Bihar and Others

Ashutosh Kumar, J.

The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 1st of December, 2008 passed in Complaint Case No. 988C of 2000 whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 500, 501, 502 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, at the relevant time was an Assistant, working in the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. He also worked as office bearer of the workers union in the Corporation. On 5th of June, 2000, a news item was published in a Hindi daily Newspaper, namely, "HINDUSTAN" under the sub-title "Rajya Pariwahan Mein Loot Machi Hai". The aforementioned news item mentioned that the Corporation had given the work of body building of the buses to black listed firms, which had no experience or resources to undertake such work. The news item further disclosed that the authorities of the Corporation have been demanding items like Cooler, Refrigerator, Telephone etc. from such firms, over and above the kickback commission which had already been taken by them.

The news item further revealed that the petitioner, who happened to be an office bearer of the union, discloses that since October, 1999, about 200 employees have been suspended and when this was protested, the petitioner was also suspended.

This news item, as alleged in the complaint petition, made a serious imputation against the opposite party No. 2 as well as the members of the Purchase Committee, who had jointly made a decision regarding selection of body builders of the buses. The allegation of accepting gifts by way of commission or illegal gratification was not only derogatory but also damaged the general reputation of Opposite Party No. 2, in the estimation of people at large. It was further alleged that since the petitioner was depart-mentally proceeded against for his subversive activities, he took umbrage at such departmental decision and as a premeditated design, revealed misleading information to the press, thereby maligning and damaging the reputation of opposite party No. 2 who, at the relevant time, was the Administrator of the Corporation. The complaint lodged by Opposite Party No. 2, apart from arraigning the petitioner also laid accusation on the publisher, editor and the correspondent of the newspaper.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that taking cognizance under Sections 500, 501, 502 of the Indian Penal Code only manifested complete lack of application of mind inasmuch as the petitioner, not being either the publisher, printer or the correspondent of the newspaper, could not gave been charged for the offence of defamation. It was further submitted that because of initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner, Opposite Party No. 2 has hazarded a presumption that the news item, published was at the behest of and as a result of the inputs, given by the petitioner.

The offence of defamation has been defined under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. In the definition, exceptions have been provided. The first exception is that if any writing/publication/utterance is in the nature of imputation of truth but it is for public good, then it shall not be defamation. Similarly, the 9th exception is that if, any publication is made in good faith and for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for public good, it is no defamation.

From the reading of the news item, leading to the present complaint, it would appear that the report was about irregularity having been committed in the matter of body building of buses. The news item does not make it clear that such information was provided by the petitioner. The only portion of the news item about which, there is reference of the petitioner, is his statement that approximately 200 persons have been suspended by the administration since 1999 and when the petitioner protested, he too was suspended. This portion of the news item only, exclusively refers to the petitioner and such statement by no means could be said to be defamatory.

This Court further notices that the news item also takes note of the counter view point, rebutting such allegations.

Thus, the news item apart from being covered under Exceptions 1 and 9 of Section 499 also does not, in any manner, lowers the reputation of Opposite Party No. 2 in the estimation of public.

It was rightly contended by the petitioner that the mechanism of publication of news items in newspaper is that correspondents are given different beats and they gather information about a particular organization through their own sources and report the same to the editing, department of the newspaper.

The petitioner has only, in the entire news item, stated to have told the correspondent that 200 persons have till now been suspended and because of the objections raised by him for such illegal suspension orders, he too was suspended. The petitioner was only airing his grievances/views to the correspondent, without ascribing it either personally to opposite party No. 2 or to the administration of Corporation in general.

One of the most cherished values of our Constitution is the freedom of speech and expression, which has been guaranteed as fundamental right. However, there are reasonable restrictions on such rights, one such restriction being that it should not be defamatory.

Assuming that the so-called news item was at the instance of the petitioner, it would be squarely covered by exceptions 1 and 9 to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. If news items are not published with regard to the functioning of a department, it would only amount to keeping the constituencies of democracy namely, the public, unaware about the manner in which, the public money is being spent.

Opposite Party No. 2 is a public servant and he ought to remember that anybody who fills a public position must not be so thin-skinned that every statement/publication offends him. As a public servant. Opposite party No. 2 has rendered himself open, justifiably so, to criticisms. Any public servant operating in public field has to keep in mind that he is under the surveillance of public at large. The only test whether any comment is defamatory or not is whether it is made in good faith and so far as the publisher and editor are concerned; whether such items have been published after due care and attention to the fact whether such news item is correct and non-defamatory.

The prosecution in the present complaint with respect to the publisher and the editor has already been quashed by an order of this Court dated 28th of March, 2008 passed in Cri. Misc. No. 34577 of 2007 (Annexure-3).

The petitioner was also sought to be prosecuted in another case for the offence of defamation as a similar news item had been published in a Hindi daily newspaper, namely, "Dainik Jagran" on 11th of June, 2000. That publication led to the filing of a separate complaint in which also cognizance had been taken under Sections 500, 501, 502 of the Indian Penal Code. The aforementioned prosecution was quashed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 22nd of July, 2000 passed in Cri. Misc. No. 817 of 2009.

Thus, finding that the petitioner has not made any personal imputation against Opposite Party No. 2 or for that matter anyone and there being no certainty of the news item having been published at the behest of the petitioner, the prosecution against him appears to be meaningless.

As a result of the above findings, the order taking cognizance and the entire criminal prosecution arising thereof is quashed. The petition is accordingly, allowed.