Delhi District Court
Cis No.535627/16 Ps Darya Ganj ... vs . Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 1 Of ... on 12 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI JAIN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 01,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Shri Manzoor-Ul-Haq
S/o. Usman Ul Haq,
R/o. House No. 2191, M.P. Street,
Kucha Chalan, Dary Ganj,
New Delhi-06.
....................Complainant
Versus
1. Gulam Rasool Behlim, Accused No. 1
Deputy General Manager,
North Regional Branches,
Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited,
32, Netaji Subash Marg, Darya Ganj,
Delhi.
2. Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Limited, Accused No. 2.
78, Mohammad Ali Road,
Mumbai-400003.
3. Shri Zia Quadri, Accused No. 3
Printer, Publisher,
The Daily Rashtriya Sahara (Urdu)
C-2, 3 & 4, Sector-II,
Noida, U.P.
4. The daily Rashtriya Sahara (Urdu), Accused No. 4
28, Gopal Dass Bhawan,
Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi.
CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 1 of 31
a) Sl. No. of the case : 535627/16
b) CNR No. : DLCT-02-000838/16
c) Date of institution :04.12.2006
d) Name of the complainant : Manjoor Ul Haq
e) Name of the accused : Behlm & Ors.
f) Offence complained of : U/s 500/501/502 IPC
g) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Final order : Acquitted
i) Date of such order : 12.09.2018
JUDGMENT:
1. The case of complainant that he was the employee of Bombay Mercantile Bank Limited and was lastly posted at Jaipur Branch, that brother of the complainant namely Jia-Ul-Haq filed a case against the employer of the complainant i.e. Bombay Mercantile Bank before the Hon'ble High Court and also filed complaint before CBI for initiating inquiry against the Bombay Mercantile Bank for the irregularities committed by the bank. is that on 18.06.2005, complainant was surprised to know that accused no. 1 Gulam Rasool, DGM, North Regional Branches of Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as Accused No.1) and accused no.2 Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as Accused No.2) got a news article published in the newspaper "Rashtriya Sahara" in Urdu whereby imputations against the complainant Manjoor Ul Haq were published intending to harm, or CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 2 of 31 knowing or having to reason believe that such imputation will harm his reputation and thereby both the accused persons committed offence under Section 500 IPC. It is further alleged that accused no. 3 Zia Quadri publisher of daily "Rashtriya Sahara" (Urdu Newspaper) (hereinafter referred to as Accused No.3) and accused no. 4 "Rashtriya Sahara"
(Urdu Newspaper) (hereinafter referred to as Accused No. 4) published/printed a defamatory article against complainant Manjur Ul Haq, knowing or having good reason to be believe that such matter was defamatory and also sold or offer for sold such material and thereby accused no. 3 and accused no. 4 committed offence under Section 501/502 IPC.
2. Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C was filed in the court by the complainant and complainant examined himself as CW-1 and reiterated the contents of his complainant. Thereafter, arguments heard on the point of summoning and accordingly accused persons were summoned passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
3. Thereafter, vide order dated 19.07.2013, the notice for the offence under Section 500 IPC was served upon the accused no. 1 Gulam Rasool Behlim and accused no.2 Bombay Mercantile Cooperative Bank Limited. Further, notice for the offence under Section 501/502 IPC was also served upon accused No. 3 Ziya Quadri and accused no. 4 The Daily Rashtriya Sahra (Urdu) to which they pleaded not guilty and claim trial. Thereafter, post charge evidence took place wherein CW-1 was cross CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 3 of 31 examined.
POST-CHARGE EVIDENCE
4. During cross examination, conducted by Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused no. 1 and accused no. 2, he deposed that that he has been working in Bombay Mercantile Bank since 01.08.1977. He denied that when he contacted the newspaper regarding the news article in question, they had given him reply informing him the basis on which the same was published. He admitted that his counsel had given a legal notice dated 20.06.2005 to Rastriya Sahara Newspaper on his instructions, that no reply to the said notice was given by the newspaper, that he was shown document Ex. CW-1/F from judicial record which the witness admits to have been received by him. He denied that along with this reply, the press release note dated 17.06.2005 and termination letter dated 11.06.2005 were annexed. He deposed that he had not received the document Ex. CW-1/3 from the newspaper, that the same was given to him by his counsel subsequently, that the same was given by the accused persons in the hon'ble High Court in several proceedings, that he worked with accused no.1 and can identify his signature. He admitted that document Ex. CW-1/3 does not bear signatures of accused no. 1. He denied that it was mentioned in the reply received by him that the press release note had been received from Bombay, that the press release note was not got published by accused no. 1 but was received only from Bombay. He deposed that he had read the newspaper article dated 18.06.2005 in Delhi Urdu Newspaper. He admitted that on that day, he CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 4 of 31 was posted at Jaipur. He voluntarily deposed that he was present in Delhi on that day and came to know through this article that he had been terminated. He further deposed that he has filed a civil suit against accused no. 1 and 2 challenging his termination and for reinstatement, that in the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court, he was given a draft with respect to three months salary. He denied that several memos have been served upon him by the bank, that he has filed several memos issued to him by the bank in the Civil Case filed by him, that a chargesheet was issued to him on 21.01.1988 but he admitted that domestic inquiry was initiated against him. He voluntarily deposed that the document issued to him was not a chargsheet. He admitted that the name of his wife is Smt. Husna Praveen, that she had taken loan from accused no. 2 bank. He deposed that he is not aware if his wife had not returned the loan amount. He denied that he had recommended the bank to approve loans for Ataul Haque, Sirazul Haque and Faisal Beg. He further deposed that he did not receive any letter dated 04.07.2003 giving details of 22 defaulters who were advanced loans at his recommendation, the he has not taken any loan from the bank. He denied that his wife was given loan three times on his recommendation , that he was given memos with respect to his recommendation on the basis of which loans worth Rs. 24,00,000/- were given by the bank, that he used to misbehave with the bank officials when they used to go to house of persons for recovery of loan amount, that he has been correctly terminated and the press release was published on the basis of correct CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 5 of 31 facts, that the present case has been filed to pressurize the bank to reinstate him, that accused no. 1 was not having any power to terminate him. He admitted that the termination letter Ex. CW-1/85 does not bear signature of accused no. 1 Bank, that he is deposing falsely.
5. Complainant was also cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel for accused no. 3 and 4. During cross examination, he deposed that he continuously worked without brake with the accused bank till his termination, that he joined the bank as an Apprentice, that he was a senior officer at the time of his termination, that the bank did not inform him about the termination vide letter dated 11.06.2005 Ex. CW-1/7. He admitted that he had encashed the demand draft received by him in the Hon'ble High Court. He deposed that he was not aware of the press note dated 17.06.2005 prior to going through the newspaper dated 18.06.2005, that he was already subscribing to the newspaper in question at that time, that he is not aware if this article was published in any other newspaper, that he is not aware if he had filed on record or not the legal notice. He further deposed that he came to know that accused no. 3 was the Printer/Publisher as this fact remains mentioned in the newspaper, that the newspaper Ex. CW-1/1 also mentions his name on page no. 2 in column at point DX1, that he cannot say if the news article was published on the basis of press release note, that he has not seen any press note being released at the time of termination of any bank employee. He admitted that an employee can be terminated only through a termination letter. He deposed that the termination was done by M.D CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 6 of 31 Sh. S.U. Pathan. He admitted that he has not made the newspaper a party to the civil case. He denied that the translation of the newspaper as placed by him is not the correct translation and he is deposing falsely.
6. Thereafter, complainant closed his post charge evidence vide separate statement and matter was fixed for SA.
7. Thereafter, statement of accused no. 1 to 4 under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded on 03.05.2014 wherein accused persons denied the allegations levelled against them and opted to lead Defence Evidence. DEFENCE EVIDENCE
8. Accused persons have examined as many as five Defence Witnesses in their favour.
9. DW-1 is Sh. Saleem Siddiqui (Sr. Reporter at Sahara India Mass Communication), who deposed that on 17.06.2005, a press note was received from Bombay Merchandise at the office of Rashtriya Shara Ex. CW-1/3, that on the basis of said press note they published a news in the Rashtriya Sahara issue on 18.06.2005 Ex. CW-1/1, that Rashtriya Sahara published the news on the basis of press note only.
10. In the cross examination, he deposed that the contents of the press note received from the aforesaid bank were not verified. He voluntarily deposed that if the press note is received from the HOD of public institution of local authority recognized by the state and the same is official letter head and is duly stamped and signed then no verification of CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 7 of 31 the contents are done. He further deposed that verification is done if news is received by private person. It is put to the witness can he tell wherein the press note Ex. CW-1/3 it has been mentioned that complainant did hera-pheri of Rs. 24,00,000/-, to which he replied that in the newspaper the news are not published word by word and sometimes the language of news is idiomatic, that press note was in detail running into three pages however, the news was published in summary and the gist of the press note was published in the newspaper, that the fact of misbehavior is in the para 2 and 5 of the press note, that in para 7 it has been mentioned that loans were given to the close relatives of Manjoor- Ul-Haq and was classified as NPA causing loss of more than 24,00,000/-. He denied that the news were published to defamed the complainant without being verified, that entire news was false, that he is deposing falsely.
11. DW-2 is Asad Raza Naqvi, who deposed that he was working as Editor in Rashtriya Sahara, Urdu Edition, that in the Month of June 2005, he was working as bureau chief in the same, that whenever a press note is received from an institution, their report verified the same from the said institution, that after the said verification, they publish it by summarizing it and do not publish it verbatim, that in the present case also their reporter verified the press note received from Bombay Mercantile Co-operative bank, that the said press note is Ex. CW-1/3 and was purportedly signed by the concerned Manager of the said bank, that the news was published in the Rashtriya Sahara is Ex. CW-1/1, that nothing was added in the CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 8 of 31 news which was not mentioned in the press release of the bank, that in news itself it has been mentioned that same was published on the basis of press release of the bank, that the complainant has not furnished the correct translation Ex. CW-1/2 of the news article, that in the translation of the word embezzlement has been used whereas in the news only word Hera Pheri has been mentioned.
12. In the cross examination, he deposed that the reporter Khalid verified the press news, that he verified the fact of issuance of press release, that Khalid told him that the fact of verification, that he did not personally verify the press release, that he cannot comment that embezzlement is one of the synonyms of Hera Pheri. He denied that they published the news deliberately using such words to cause defamation of complainant. He voluntarily deposed that they published news as per press release. He denied that they did not publish the news as per press release, that he is deposing falsely.
13. DW-3 is Rais Ahmed, who deposed that he was working as Manager Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank, 36 NS Marg, Darya Ganj, Delhi, that he had been authorized by the Managing Director to appear and represent the bank and gave evidence on its behalf by GPA Ex. DW-3/1 (OSR), that he had filed document/record regarding the mis- conduct/misbehavior of the complainant at various point of time, that complaint dated 18.01.1988 made by Branch Manager of BMC Bank to CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 9 of 31 the General Manager, that he has filed documents in support of its testimony Ex. DW-3/A-2 to Ex. DW-3/A22, that all the said documents pertain to the memos/charghseets etc., issued to the complainant during his tenure with the bank, that he also filed certified copy of Civil Suit (including plaint, written statement and the documents filed by both the parties) filed by the complainant against Bombay Mercantile Co- operative Bank, that the same are Ex.DW-3/2, that he has also filed certified copy of criminal complaint (along with documents and summoning order) under Section 138 N.I. Act against the accused and his wife Husna Praveen, that the same is Ex. DW-3/3, that he has also filed photocopy of judgment/order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi regarding writ petition (Civil) filed by the complainant against Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank, that the same is marked as Mark D-1, that he is also filed the photocopy of judgment/order passed by Civil Court in regard to aforesaid suit (Ex. DW-3/2), that same is marked D-2. He further deposed that besides complainant's own default and the default regarding the loan of his wife, there are number of loans which were referred by the complainant but turned NPA, that the press release was issued by the Bombay Mercantile Bank only due to the conduct of complainant and same is based on true facts, that the allegations of the complainant are false.
14. In the cross examination he deposed that he was not part of the inquiry referred in the chargesheet Ex. DW-3/A, that he has not filed proceedings regarding the said chargesheet, that in the said inquiry complainant was CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 10 of 31 charged for the acts of indiscipline and insubordination, that as the result of said inquiry, one increment of complainant was withheld. He admitted that said punishment of stoppage of increment was not imposed and complainant was let off with warning only, that he do not know as to what final action was taken regarding the show cause notice Ex. DW-3/A4. He denied that no action was taken on the said notice because it was a false notice. He deposed that he is denying the aforesaid suggestion because the complainant Manzoor Ul Haq was probably forgiven, that the complaint against him was not false, that action was taken against the complainant Manzoor Ul Haq regarding the complaint Ex. DW-3/A5, that he was transferred out of the Delhi branch of Bombay Mercantile Co- operative Bank Ltd. to HRD department, Bombay branch on 26.03.2002. He denied that in March 2002, about 200 employees of the said bank were transferred and the complainant was transferred in pursuance to general transfers. He admitted that complainant challenged his transfer by way of Civil Suit in Delhi. He denied that during the pendency of the said suit, the complainant was transferred by the bank to Jaipur. He voluntarily deposed that he was transferred to Jaipur after conclusion of said suit. He further deposed that he do not remember the date of complainant's transfer to Jaipur, that he was transferred to Jaipur from Bombay because complainant was requesting for posting at a place nearby to his home, that he do not know what action was taken against the complainant regarding office order Ex. DW-3/A7, that pursuant to memo Ex. DW-3/A4, the complainant was transferred to Bombay, that he CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 11 of 31 has not brought any record showing that pursuant to memo Ex. DW-3/A4, the complainant was transferred to Bombay, that the complainant was transferred to Mumbai through a single transfer order, which is related to the complainant. The attention of the witness drawn towards Ex. DW-3/A- 8 and specially towards portion A to A and it is put to the witness, what is meant by availing loan, to which he replied that the term 'availing loan means taking loan. It is further put to the witness that in Ex. DW-3/A-8 at portion A to B, he has mentioned that complainant had availed as much as 22 loans and he has filed proof of the same, to which witness replied in negative. He further deposed complainant has settled one matter with the bank which is mentioned at S. No. 22, that being bank employee the complainant cannot take the loan in his own name and he has taken the loan in the name of different persons including his relatives and wife, that for the settlement of one of the above mentioned 22 loans at item no. 22 of Ex. DW-3/A-8, the complainant issued a letter in his writing which is Mark DW-8/D-1. It further put to the witness whether there is any rule of the bank whereunder any employee of the bank can take the loan on behalf of other persons, to which he replied that there is no such rule of the bank. He further deposed that employee can only recommend the name of other person for taking the loan, that they had not filed any document in the Court showing that the complainant has recommended the release of loan to any person mentioned in the document Ex. DW- 3/A-8, that he do not know the exact date, month or year when these 22 loans were granted, that they had not issued any show cause notice to CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 12 of 31 the complainant asking him why he has recommended the release of loan to those 22 persons, that they had also not filed any suit for recovery of the loans against the complainant in any Court of Law except item no. 22 in document Ex. DW-3/A-8, that they had not issued any chargesheet to the complainant in this regard except for those four or five cases, that the bank had issued the show cause notice dated 02.09.2003 to the complainant in this regard wherein only 3 loans were mentioned in the said letter, that the certified copy of which is Ex. DW-3/D-2. He admitted that after receipt of reply Ex. DW-3, the bank did not initiate any enquiry against the complainant. He admitted that in the letter Mark DW-1/D1, the complainant had assured that he can arrange from the relatives/friends in view of the said promise from bank, that the bank has not filed any criminal complaint against the complainant in respect of any matter relating to and mentioned in document Ex. DW-3/A-8, that the bank has not filed any civil suit against the complainant for the recovery of said loan amount as mentioned in letter Ex. DW-3/A-8. He voluntarily deposed that in case of recovery of some of 22 loans, civil suits have been filed. He further deposed that he do not know the details of any such cases. He denied that no such civil suit has been filed against the complainant at any point of time. He admitted that the bank has not conducted any departmental enquiry against the complainant in all the matters Ex. DW- 3/A to Ex. DW-3/A22. It is further to put to the witness whether transfer of the complainant mentioned in the routine transfer list issued in the year 2002 of around 150 other officers, to which the replied that he do not CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 13 of 31 remember. He deposed that the transfer of the complainant to Mumbai was a transfer on the basis of misconduct of the complainant. He denied that he is deposing falsely, that any defamation has been caused to the complainant. He deposed that the bank has only stated truth.
15. DW-4 is Ms. Nahid Akhtar, who deposed that she post graduate in Urdu Language and she has further done her P.hd in the Persian Language, that she has been doing the of translation from Urdu to English for about 7 last years. She deposed that the translation of word embezzlement into Urdu would be 'ghaban', that the word 'hera feri' would be translated into English as manipulation or wrong doing, that the word 'dishonestly' would be translated into Urdu as 'Be-Imani', that the word 'defraud' would be translated into Urdu as 'Be-inami se haq marna'. The witness has asked to read newspaper cutting published in Rashtriya Sahara dated 18.06.2005 which in Urdu Ex. DW-4/A, that the witness has read the said portion in Court, that the witness has been asked to compare the portion A of Urdu Ex. DW-4/A which has been read by her with the English translation submitted by the complainant and Ex. CW-1/2 and point out any discrepancy in translation of words therein. She deposed that the translation of the news clipping Ex. DW-4/A is not verbatim and word hera feri has been wrongly translated into 'embezzlement', that the correct translation of 'embezzlement' is 'gaban', that the word 'hera feri' as explained above means manipulation or wrong doing, that the word 'hera feri' has been used twice in the news clipping and in the translation on both occasion and it has been wrongly translated as embezzlement. CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 14 of 31
16. In the cross examination she deposed that she has done her MA in Urdu Literature, that she do not have any degree in English Literature. She voluntarily deposed that she had a subject English Graduation, that she has not obtained any diploma or degree from any University from Urdu to English and English to Urdu, that she also not undergone any training anywhere for translating any matter from Urdu to English and English to Urdu, that she do not remember name of any dictionary from Urdu to Urdu. She admitted that leading dictionary from Urdu to Urdu is known as "Feroz-lughat", that leading dictionary from English to Urdu is known as "Chamber Dictionary". She deposed that she has consulted these dictionary, that he can tell after consulting these dictionary that the meaning of hera feri is misappropriation or not. She further deposed that the meaning of word " Hera-Pheri" as "manipulation" was stated by her after consulting dictionaries, that she consulted one-line dictionary, that she do not remember the name of the on-line dictionary, that she cannot say that in Urdu the word Hera Feri has any other meaning or not. She admitted that Firoz-ul-Lughath is a standard test of reference. Witness was shown the said dictionary and she is asked to read out the following meanings of the word Hera Feri given in Firoz-ul-laghath- "KISI SAUDE KO LANA AUR PHIR PHERNE KO JANA; BAAR BAAR AANA JAANA;
HAINCH PAINCH; MAKR-O-FAREB", that the photocopy of the said word is Ex. DW-4/A (X), that the meaning of word Fareb is 'Dokha Dena',that as per the entry in Firoz-ul-Lughat the meaning of word Fareb is given as "DAGHA; MAKR; DHOKA; DAM; JHANSA; CHALAKI; AYYARI; SHAIDA", CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 15 of 31 that the photocopy of the same is Ex. DW-4/A. It was put to the witness whether she can explain the meaning of sentence "Ek Bank Karamchari Ne Bank ke Saath Hera Feri ki, to which she replied that Bank ke Karamchari ne Bank ke saath Dokha kia, that she was asked to explain the meaning of Hatake Izzat, to which she replied that Hatake Izzat ka matlab 'for honour hota- izzat ke liye'. She deposed that he can confirm after consulting the dictionary. Witness was shown the said dictionary and she is asked to read out different meaning of words Hera Feri given in the dictionary, that after consulting the witness stated that the meaning of word Hatake Izzat given in Firoz-ul-lughath is "KISI KI IZZAT MEIN BATTA LAGANA; KISI KI IZZAT KO RUSWA/BADNAM KARNA".
17. DW-4 was re-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel and deposed that she had consulted a dictionary to state that the word embezzlement means gaban and not her feri, that the witness states that the meaning of word dishonest given in English to Urdu, Urdu-English Dictionary by Dr. Abdul Haq is Be-Imaan, that Dr. Abdul Haq's dictionary is standard dictionary widely used for translations from Urdu to English and vice-versa, that Dhoka Dhadi, Be-imaani, Fareb are reflect greater degree of negative connation than hera pheri.
18. She was again cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the complainant and deposed that Be-imaani fraud/dhoka/dishonesty, that hera feri is also a similar word which means wrong doing/dhoka dhadi/manipulation, that CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 16 of 31 both are negative in connotation. She admitted that Dhoka Dhadi, Be- immani, hera pheri are all used in negative sense. She denied that there is no variation in the degree of negativity attached to each word.
19. DW-5 is Zia Qadree, who deposed that he is working as Deputy Director of Sahara India Pariwar, that in the year 2005, he was working as Controller in Sahara India Pariwar, that he has always been posted at Lucknow except for a short duration in Hyderbad, that he has never been posted in Delhi and Noida, that he was printer and publisher of Rashtriya Sahara Urdu Roznama at Lucknow, that the news item in question in this case was never published in the Lucknow edition printed at Noida, that he cannot say who was looking after the printing and publishing of Rashtriya Sahara Uddu Roznama in the year 2005 at Delhi and Noida, however, he was not in any manner involved with the same, that the news item in question was published in their newspaper in the public interest and in good faith as bank is custodian of public money and if there are allegations of hera-feri/manipulation in the bank, it would constitute public interest, that he never knew about Mr. Manzoor-Ul-Haq before filing of this case, that neither a newspaper or he had any dispute or interest in defaming the complainant, that neither the newspaper or he had any motive to publish the said article in favour of accused no. 1 & 2, that the said news item in question was published in good faith, that in the news item, no allegation has been made on behalf of the newspaper and the same have been published stating very clearly that the news item CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 17 of 31 is based upon information received by the newspaper without giving their own views regarding the complainant. In the cross examination he admitted that at the relevant time, the was publisher and printer of Rashtriya Sahara Urdu Roznama including Delhi. He voluntarily deposed that he was posted at Lucknow and the actual work was seen by somebody else in Delhi. He admitted that the newspaper reflects that he was publisher and printer of Rashtriya Sahara Urdu Roznama including Delhi. He deposed that the responsibility of printer and publisher is to get the newspaper printed and published, that the contents of the newspaper are decided by the editors, that the printer/publisher has no control over the content of the news item in the newspaper, as per the policy of the company as well as laws. He denied that no article or news item can be published in the newspaper without the knowledge and consent of publisher/printer, that he is overall incharge of Editor, sub-editor and chief editor and correspondents. He deposed that the administrative control of printing and publishing is completely separate from administrative control of above mentioned editorial staff, that he had no interference in the editorial administration. He denied that he has any power over the material being published in the newspaper. He deposed that he came to know about this news article after receiving the notice of this case, that he do not remember the date, that after coming to know of this case, he enquired what was the basis of publishing this news and he was informed that the news was based upon the press-release made by the bank, that he had seen the press release made by the bank and according to him, CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 18 of 31 the news was published as per the press release, that he do not stand by the correctness and allegations made in the press release and that can be answered by the editorial staff only. He denied that newspaper or he had any enmity with the complainant or because of enmity, the news item was got published, that as printer and publisher, he was overall incharge of publishing/printing of the newspaper. He voluntarily deposed that it was done at Noida and he was posted at Lucknow. He denied that the news item in question was deliberately published to defame the complainant with his consent and knowledge, that as overall incahrge of newspaper, he cannot escape the responsibility of publishing the news item in question. He deposed that he is not overall incharge of the newspaper.
20. DW-5 was re-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel and he deposed that he had never heard about the complainant before this case therefore, he cannot say if he enjoys a good reputation or not or whether any defamation of the complainant has been caused by the news in question.
21. DW-5 was again cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the complainant and during cross examination he denied that he was aware of the good reputation enjoyed by the complainant, that because of the news article in question, the complainant suffered loss of reputation in the society and was defamed.
22. Thereafter, Defence Evidence was closed and matter was fixed for final CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 19 of 31 arguments.
23. I have heard the final arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and perused the record.
APPRECIATION OF FACTS/CONTENTIONS/ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
24. Perusal of the record reveals that accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 are charged with the offence under Section 500 IPC and accused no. 3 and 4 are charged with the offence under Section 501/502 IPC.
25. Section 500 IPC provides punishment for offence of defamation, therefore, it is necessary to go through the provision of Section 499 IPC which defines Defamation as under:-
"Section 499 IPC stipulates that whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing of having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.
Explanation 1- It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2- It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3- An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 20 of 31 ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4- No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the characters of that person in respect of his case or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.
First Exception- Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published- It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.
Second Exception- Public conduct of public servants- It is not defamation to express in a good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Third Exception- Conduct of any person touching any public question- It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Fourth Exception- Publication of reports of proceedings of Courts- It is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings.
Fifth Exception- Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 21 of 31 witnesses and others concerned- it is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Sixth Exception- Merits of public performance- It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further.
Seventh Exception- Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another- It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law of arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any ensure on the conduct of that other in matter to which such lawful authority relates.
Eighth Exception- Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person- It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.
Ninth Exception- Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests- It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.
CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 22 of 31 Tenth Exception- Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good- It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.
26. Section 501 IPC stipulates that:-
"Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory- whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to believe that such matter is defamatory of any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both".
27. Section 502 IPC stipulates that: Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter- whoever sells or offers for sale any printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter, knowing that it contains such matter, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both".
28. Perusal of the record reveals that accused no. 1 and 2 were charged with the offence under Section 500 IPC. However, it is pertinent to mention here that complainant has not examined even a single independent public witness so as to prove and substantiate the allegations of defamation against the accused no. 1 and 2. Section 499 explanation 4 stipulates that no imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 23 of 31 moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his case or his calling, or lowers the credit of that person or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.
29. In the case in hand no other person has been examined to substantiate the allegations of defamation. Complainant has failed to produce even a single witness so as to prove that he was defamed in the society and his reputation has been lowered down in the eyes of others by reading the news published in newspaper. Complainant has not mentioned name of even a single person in whose eyes his image is lowered down by reading the news in question. Furthermore, perusal of the record reveals that several memos have been issued to the complainant and thereafter he was terminated on 11.06.2005 after due enquiry. The complainant alleged that the accused no. 1 with the authorization of accused no. 2 published defamatory contents against him through accused no. 3 and accused no. 4. The defamatory contents were published by accused no. 3 and accused no. 4 at the instance of accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 in the newspaper dated 18.06.2005 and the instruction given by the accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 is Ex. CW-1/3. However, perusal of Ex. CW-1/3 reveals that it is neither signed nor forwarded by accused no. 1 and complainant had admitted in his cross examination dated 13.11.2013, that the document Ex. CW-1/3 i.e. press release note and Ex. CW-1/5 i.e. termination letter does not bear the signature of accused CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 24 of 31 no. 1. Therefore, admittedly press release note Ex. CW-1/3 and termination letter dated Ex. CW-1/5 does not bears the signature of accused no. 1 and said documents were not even forwarded by accused no. 1 and the news was published in the newspaper upon receiving press note from the Managing Director of Bombay Mercantile Bank, Bombay Branch. Accordingly, Delhi Branch has no role to play in it as the said press note Ex. CW-1/3 was issued from Mumbai. Furthermore, there is no documentary evidence on record to establish that news Ex. CW-1/1 was published in newspaper after obtaining approval from accused no. 1 and accused no.2.
30. In view of aforesaid discussion, complainant failed to establish the guilt of the accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 beyond reasonable doubt.
31. So far as role of the accused no. 3 and 4 are concerned. Perusal of the record reveals that they are charged with offence under Section 501/502 IPC.
32. Section 501 IPC stipulates that:-
"Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory- whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to believe that such matter is defamatory of any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both".
33. Section 502 IPC stipulates that-
CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 25 of 31 Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter- whoever sells or offers for sale any printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter, knowing that it contains such matter, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both".
34. Again it is pertinent to note that nobody other than complainant has stated or depose before the Court of Law that the complainant had any reputation in the society which has been lowered down due the article published in newspaper.
35. Furthermore, accused no. 3 is printer of newspaper and accused no. 4 is newspaper who do not have any dishonest intention or grudge against complainant so as to defame the complainant and they have just published the news in good faith relying upon press note Ex. CW-1/3 about termination of services of complainant mentioning several incidents and acts of misconduct against him. The news Ex. CW-1/1 merely published the version of events in summary manner as mentioned in the press note.
36. DW-1 Sh. Salim Siddqui categorically deposed that press note was received from the HOD of public institution of local authority recognized by the state and the same is on the official letter head and duly stamped and signed and therefore, no verification of contents are done and was published in summary manner.
CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 26 of 31
37. DW-2 Asad Raza Naqvi, also deposed that nothing was added in the news and the same was published on the basis of press release of the bank.
38. The accused no.3 and no. 4 being in the possession of journalistic enterprise are protected by the First and the Ninth exception as the present case falls under both of them. The said exceptions are reproduced below-
39. First Exception:-
Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published- It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it is for public good that the imputations should be made or published. Whether or not it is for public good is a question of fact.
40. Ninth Exception:-
Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests- It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.
41. Complainant has alleged that accused no. 3 and no. 4 published and printed the defamotory article. However, the accused no. 4, an Urdu Newspaper, published a news article (CW-1/1) based upon the pres note CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 27 of 31 published by printing the fact that complainant has been terminated by the Bank. The said article paraphrased the version of events given by the Bank in the news article leading to termination of the services of complainant. The said article does not attribute any fact from its own knowledge and merely published the version of events as given in press note. A bare reading of the article will show that it categorically states that the article is based upon the version given by the bank. The evidence led on behalf of the accused persons sows that the bank stands by the allegations made in the press note and has been able to substantiate them as true by oral as well as documentary evidence. The accused no. 3 & no. 4 have further proved that the news article was published in good faith. Further it cannot be lost sight that press note was a communication made by an official of public institution i.e. a Scheduled Public Bank in his official capacity in writing. Such communications are presumed to be made in a regular manner and bonafide. But even then the newspaper acted with caution. It did not publish the entire allegations made in the press note. It lowered down the allegations made by Bank in as much that it has used a much milder version of word "defraud" used by the Bank and used "manipulation" instead. It further clearly stated that the allegations are not facts but the version of the employer of complainant. It is not any body's case that the press release was not made by the bank and the newspaper has published falsehood on its own. It is also not the case of the complainant that the acts of the accused no. 3 and 4 were malicious as they bore any ill will towards complainant. In fact the CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 28 of 31 accused no. 3 and no. 4 were just doing their duty by publishing and printing a news item concerning the functioning and financial integrity of a Public Bank. It is in the interest of the public to be aware of the facts that public banks are functioning above board to be able to repose faith in public banking. It is also in the interest of bank and public alike that it should be conveyed to public at large that Bank takes stringent action against its errant employees. It is also the right of the people to know that if the bank has found some of its employee are not discharging his duties in proper manner then what action has been taken as it involes safety of public money. The allegation that there was any collusion/ conspiracy between the accused persons has not been proved on record by complaint. Thus the Newspaper has acted in public good, imputed only truth in its publication and the act was done in good faith. The fact that the article was not published in good faith or that it was not in the interest of public i.e. public good has not even suggested to accused no.3 when he appeared in witness box as DW-5.
42. The accused no. 3 and 4 are charged for the offences under Section 501 IPC & 502 IPC as printer and publisher. The aforementioned offence requires the following ingredients to be proved-
That the matter printed is defamatory.
That the defamatory matter was printed by the accused. That the defamatory matter was printed by the accused CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 29 of 31 knowingly or with good reasons to believe that the matter was defamatory.
43. It is pertinent to note that the published material is not defamatory as it is covered by exceptions 1 and 9 to Section 499 IPC.
44. The complainant has not lead any evidence to show that the accused no. 3 had the requisite mens rea i.e. he knew before printing the matter that it was defamatory or had good reasons to believe that it was defamatory. In fact, the accused had come in the witness box and deposed that he was posted at Lucknow and had no knowledge or occasion to know what was published and printed at Lucknow. The said fact has not been rebutted or challenged by the complainant. Failure to prove the requisite mens rea is fatal to prosecution. Reliance is placed upon the judgment Shankar Chettiar Vs. K Ramaksirhan Pillai, AIR 1960 Ker 141.
45. So far as evidence regarding under Section 502 IPC is concerned, no evidence has been led by the complainant so as to show newspaper containing defamatory article was sold the offered for sale by accused no. 3. The act of the selling or offering the newspaper by any of the accused is not alleged by the complainant specifically.
46. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and appreciation of evidence, absence of independent public witness, the complainant has failed to establish its case against the accused persons beyond CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 30 of 31 reasonable doubt and accordingly benefit of doubt goes to the credit of the accused persons and therefore, all accused persons stands acquitted of the offences under Section 500/501/502 IPC accordingly.
47. Be put up for compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C on 13.09.2018.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN Digitally signed by SHILPI JAIN
COURT ON 12.09.2018
SHILPI JAIN Date: 2018.09.13 16:55:43
+0530
(SHILPI JAIN)
MM-01/CENTRAL/TIS HAZARI COURTS
12.09.2018
CIS No.535627/16 PS Darya Ganj Manzoor-Ul-Haq Vs. Gulam Rashool Behlim Etc. Page No. 31 of 31