Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vimal Kumar vs Deshdiwaker And Anr. on 12 October, 2004
Equivalent citations: AIR2005MP37, AIR 2005 MADHYA PRADESH 37, (2004) 4 MPLJ 289
Author: A.K. Shrivastava
Bench: A.K. Shrivastava
JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J.
1. This second appeal has been preferred by plaintiff having lost from both the Courts below.
2. The plaintiff filed suit for damages to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- on account of defamatory statement published by defendant No. 1 by publishing a pamphlet naming.
^^lekt loksZijh**-
This pamphlet, according to the plaintiff was distributed on 14th January, 1983 which was read by some persons, the names of some of them are mentioned in the plaint. The statement, which according to the plaintiff, is defamatory has been pleaded in para 3 of the plaint and which is as under :-
^^¼v½ vHkh dqN le; ifgys ea=h vFkkZr oknh fdlh fodkl dk;Z esa ck/kk Mkyus ds pDdVj esa lyk[kksa ds ihNs gks x;s tks tSu dU;k Ldwy dh Nk=kvksa dks Fkkus ys tkdj ukjsckth djokbZ vkidk rks vUnj ckgj gksuk rks yxk jgrk gS ysfdu vids futh ekeyksa esa Ldwy dh Nk=kvksa dks Fkkus rd tkuk 'kksHkk ugha nsrk gSA ¼c½ lekt ds lsod foey dqekj dh og dkyh djrwr tks 'kk;n gh fdlh laLFkk ds eU=h us dh rks mUgksus og dj fn[kkbZ laLFkk ds cSBd fnukad 17@6@82 ,oa 1@7@82 dks lsod us le; ij dksje u gksus ij vuqifLFkr U;kf;a dh >wBh izkslsfMax jftLVj esa ntZ dj izLrkoksa ij fu.kZ; fy;sA ¼l½ laLFkk dh ek= nks cSBdksa ls vUnkt yxk ldrs gS fd lekt dk lsod fdruk lkQ ikd gS fny ds rks lkQ gks ldrs gS dye ds cgqr csbZeku gS gsjk Qsjh esa ekLVjh gS muds dkys dkjukeksa dh fdrkc fy[kh tk;s rks de gSA ¼n½ laLFkk ls lacaf/kr Ldwy dh f'kf{kdkvksa ls mudh ekokjh rU[kk esa ls fgLlk ysuk budh bZekunkjh gSA mDr ijpk dh izfrokn i= ds ifjf'k"V esa vafdr gSA**
3. Since the above said statement of defendant No. 1 is defamatory the plaintiff has filed suit for damages and has prayed that a decree to the tune of Rs. 7,000/- with interest 12% per annum be passed in his favour.
4. The plaint averments were denied by defendants by filing separate written statements. According to the defendant No. 1, the impugned pamphlet was published in the press of defendant No. 2 but the same was not distributed either in the township of Bina or at Railway Station. The said pamphlet was not read by any person. The defendant No. 1 in his written statement pleaded that the facts which are mentioned in impugned pamphlet are true and it has been denied they are incorrect. It has been prayed by him that suit be dismissed.
5. Defendant No. 2 in his written statement has pleaded that the impugned pamphlet was published by him on the instructions of defendant No. 1 but the same was not distributed nor anybody read it. According to the defendants the impugned pamphlets and the facts narrated therein are not published with an intention to degrade the position and status of plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 also prayed that suit be dismissed.
6. The trial Court after framing the issues, recorded the evidence and ultimately found that the suit of plaintiff is not proved, as a result of which dismissed it. The appeal which was preferred by plaintiff before First Appellate Court has also been dismissed by impugned judgment and decree. Hence, this appeal.
7. On 28-2-1992 this second appeal was admitted on following substantial question of law :
"Whether the publication Ex. P-1 is per se defamatory and hence the appellant is entitled to claim damages?"
8. Shri R. K. Thakur, learned counsel for appellant has contended that if the impugned pamphlet (Ex. P/1) is read in proper perspective, it is revealed that just to put the dent on the position and status of plaintiff/appellant the same was published and distributed. According to learned counsel the impugned pamphlet comes under the ambit and sweep of libel and the facts which are mentioned in it are libelous. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Channing Arnold v. King Emperor, AIR 1914 PC 116, S.M. Narayanan v. S.R. Narayana Iyer, AIR 1961 (Mad) 254, Habib Bhai v. Pyarelal, AIR 1964 (M.P.) 62, Ramakant v. Devilal Sharma, 1969 MPLJ 805, Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1970 SC 1372 and Sukra Mahto v. Basudeo Kumar Mahto, AIR 1971 SC 1567.
9. Combating the submissions of learned counsel for appellant, it has been argued by Shri Mohd. All, learned counsel for respondents that the averments made in the impugned pamphlet (Ex. P-1) are correct and bonafidely they were printed and there is no intention of respondents in order to put any dent on the reputation and status of plaintiff. According to learned counsel the impugned pamphlet was never circulated. Learned counsel for respondent has placed reliance on Rajindra Kishore Sahi v. Durga Sahi, AIR 1967 All 476.
10. To answer the substantial question of law which has been framed, it is to be seen minutely whether the statement made in pamphlet (Ex. P-1) is defamatory or not. Whether the action of defendants in publishing the impugned pamphlet (Ex. P-1) comes under the ambit and sweep "libel" and in order to found an action for "libel" it must be proved that the statement complained of is :-
(i) false;
(ii) in writing;
(iii) defamatory; and
(iv) published
11. In order to prove the first limb that the impugned publication is false, burden lies on plaintiff. The defendants in their written statements have categorically pleaded that the averments made in Ex. P-1 are not false. The plaintiff himself through some pamphlets Exs. D-2 and D-3 made certain allegations against defendant No. 1 Deshdiwakar. In Ex. D-2 which is a pamphlet published by plaintiff, it has been specifically mentioned that he was arrested by police though he was not present on the place of incident. In the said pamphlet, it has also been mentioned that there is a decree against Ratan Singh and his mother Siyaju which was set aside on account of Ex-Secretary Deshdiwakar and thereafter a revision was submitted in the, High Court and the case was remanded. Thus, the plaintiff himself made certain allegations against defendant No. 1 and if in response to those allegations published in pamphlet (Ex. D-2) if refuting statement is published in Ex. P-1 by defendant No. 1, it cannot be said that it is false. In Ex. D-2, the plaintiff himself has admitted that he was arrested by police and therefore if some allegation against defendant, has been published in Ex. D-2 by plaintiff and if in its reply, Ex. P-1 was published, it cannot be said that the averments made in it are defamatory. Two Courts below on the appreciation of evidence came to hold that plaintiff on 11-1-1983 made certain allegations against defendant No. 1 and therefore in reply of it, if those allegations are refuted by Ex. P-1, it cannot be said to be a libelous action of defendant No. 1. The two Courts-below while considering the documents Ex. D-20 and D-21 came to hold that at the instance of plaintiff, the demonstration by girls of the school was made at the police station. Ex. D-20 is a letter written to Principal of the Institution by one Subhash Chand Jain whose daughter happens to study in the Digambar Jain School, Bina in the letter has been mentioned that his daughter was directed to demonstrate at police station. Ex. D-21 is a letter of Principal of the School addressed to President, Nabhinandan Digambar Jain School which indicated that on account of arrest of plaintiff, demonstration was made by staff members and the girls students. Thus, it is clear that plaintiff was arrested and if the said fact has been mentioned in Ex. P/1, it can-I not be said to be false statement.
12. So far as alleged defamatory statement of P-1, which has been mentioned in para 3(b) of plaint is concerned, there is evidence of defendant that in the meeting of 17-6-1982 and 1-7-1982 the presence of some members were shown though they were not present. Siddhartha Kumar (DW-4) has also said that he was not present in the meeting and therefore on the basis of the evidence, the Courts-below came to hold that the factual averments made in the pamphlet, which is mentioned in para 3(b) of plaint, cannot be said to be false.
13. So far as the defamatory statement which has been mentioned in para 3(c) of plaint is concerned, there is evidence of Santosh Kumar (DW-6) that at the instance of plaintiff who was Secretary, the grain which was given in donation by the brother of defendant Diwakar, receipt was issued in the, name of one Kalyan Singh. He has further stated that he issued the receipt on the instruction of Secretary (Plaintiff) since he was under him and was serving as clerk in the, institution. On the basis of evidence, the two Courts below arrived at a finding of fact that the statement published in pamphlet (Ex. P-1) and which has been rewritten in para 3(C) of the plaint, is also not defamatory, since they are proven to be correct.
13-A. So far as that part of statement made in Ex. P-1 which has been re-written in para 3(d) of the plaint is concerned, defendant has examined Rambali Sharma who was a teacher in the institution and has specifically said that though her salary was Rs. 490/- but only Rs. 180/- was being paid to her. This witness has proved Ex. D-26 which is a school register. Thus, whatever has been published in Ex. P-1, was not found to be false. In this manner the statement of defendant No. 1 published in Ex. P-1 was not at all found to be the false. The two Courts-below after appreciating the evidence, ultimately arrived at such a finding which is a pure finding of fact and therefore the statement which has been published in Ex. P-1, cannot be said to be a false statement and therefore cannot be said to be a defamatory, since they were proved to be correct and if correct statement is published, it would not come under the ambit and sweep of defamation.
14. Now I would like to consider the case law relied by learned counsel for appellant. In the case of Channing Arnold (supra), and S.M. Narayanan (supra), it was found that the libel statement of accused was not correct and therefore it was found to be defamatory but in the present case whatever has been published in Ex. P-1 is found to be correct by two Courts-below on the basis of evidence. In the case of S.M. Narayanan (supra), the statement which was made was found to be not correct and therefore it was held that the statement was defamatory and on the same ground the case of Habib Bhai (supra) and Ramakant (supra) are distinguishable. In the case of Chaman Lal (supra), it has been held by the Apex Court that truth of imputation and publication of imputation for public good must be proved by accused. In the present case since it has been proved that whatever has been published in P-1 is true, the case of Chaman Lal (supra) is not helpful for plaintiff. On the similar ground the case of Sukra Mahto (supra) is distinguishable.
15. Two Courts-below also after giving its anxious and bestowed consideration gave finding of fact that Ex. P-1 was never circulated and this is a pure finding of fact. Since it has not been proved by plaintiff that whatever has been published against him in Ex. P-1 is false and specially when it is proved by defendant it is correct and it not. false, according to me, the two Courts-below did not commit any error in holding that the suit of plaintiff is not proved.
16. In the result, the appeal is found to be devoid of any substance, the same hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.