Delhi District Court
Sh. Upender Kumar Monthy vs The Chief Editor on 22 February, 2007
#1#
IN THE COURT OF SH. DAYA PRAKASH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: DELHI
CS 550/2003
Sh. Upender Kumar Monthy,
s/o. Ishwer Chand Monthy,
r/o. Village Sharangpur, P.O. Bain Suri,
District Jajpur, State-Orissa.
Lodge in Central Jail no.4
Tihar New Delhi-64.
....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
The Chief Editor,
'Punjab Kesari' Hindi Edition,
Regd. no. Delhi 21004/02.
....DEFENDANT
SUIT FOR COMPENSATION OF RS.TEN LACS
JUDGMENT
1. By this judgment I shall dispose of the suit for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for publishing defamatory news in their daily newspaper of 'Punjab Kesari' dt.11.03.2002. 1/15
#2#
2. Plaintiff had addressed a letter of April 2003 to the Ld. District & Sessions Judge. This letter was treated as suit and then proceeded as a suit.
Plaintiff in the plaint submitted that he is a true disciple of Sh. Neta Ji Subhash Chander Bose and a law abiding citizen. Plaintiff further submitted that he is lodged in Central Jail Tihar since 18.10.2002 in a false case which is pending for adjudication. Plaintiff further submitted that he was never granted bail since 18.10.2000, hence the question of absconding does not arise. Plaintiff further submitted that he was shocked when he read the newspaper 'PunjabKesari' dt.11.03.2002 through which the defendant defamed the true image of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.
Plaintiff submitted that the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendant and this court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decided the present suit. Hence, plaintiff sought the following reliefs:-
1. a decree be passed against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.10,00,000/- only.
2. that an Ambicus Courius (State Counsel) be appointed to give necessary help to the plaintiff or 2/15 #3# the Court to procure necessary document/plea on behalf of plaintiff.
3. .........
3. Defendant duly contested the claim of the plaintiff by filing the W.S. wherein defendant took several preliminary objections that no cause of action has been arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant to institute the present suit as no civil injury has been stated to be caused to the plaintiff by virtue of the news story published in the newspaper 'PunjabKesari'in the edition dt.11.03.2002; that the suit of the plaintiff has not been properly signed and verified by the plaintiff and that a civil suit for defamation cannot be entertained at all against the defendant newspaper as per ruling cited in 23 (1983) DLT 23.
In reply on merits it is submitted that the plaintiff is not a law abiding citizen as he his behind the bars for a continuous period of more then 25 years and hence plaintiff cannot take benefit of his own wrong by instituting the present false and frivolous suit against the defendant. 3/15
#4# It is submitted that the defendant has never used the word "Absconding''in the news story printed on 11.03.2002. It is further submitted that the words ''absconder'' and ''missing'' have different and almost opposite meaning. It is further submitted that infact the police was looking for the plaintiff in regard to some old evidence and it was reported in the news, after confirming this from the police sources.
Defendant submitted that there was nothing in the newspaper ''PunjabKesari''dt.11.03.2002 which have shocked the plaintiff to read the same. Defendant denied that the plaintiff is required to be compensated.
Accordingly, it prayed by the defendant that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with costs.
4. Subsequently, rejoinder to the W.S. of the defendant was filed wherein the plaintiff has denied the allegations made in the W.S. and reiterated the averments contained in the plaint.
5. After completion of pleadings following issues were 4/15 #5# framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 18.02.2005:-
1. Whether feelings of plaintiff were hurt by the publication carried out by the defendant on 11.03.2002 and he was defamed?OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- or any other sum?OPP
3. Relief.
6. On behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff himself deposed as PW1. In cross examination PW1 deposed that he belongs to Sarangpur in Orrissa and he remained their till 10.10.2000. PW1 deposed that he was lodged in Bhuvneshwar Jail on 01.11.97 and for the first time he went to jail in 1962. PW1 further deposed that he remained there for 7 and a half years and he went to jail again on 23.01.81 and remained there for 4 and a half years. PW1 further deposed he also remained in Bhubaneshwar jail for 17 years. PW1 further deposed that he remained in Hajaribad jail for 7 and a half year and also remained in Aurthor Road jail Bombay for one year. PW1 further deposed that he remained in custody for 25 years in jails outside Delhi. PW1 further deposed that he have been in 5/15 #6# jail for 5 years in Delhi. PW1 stated it to be incorrect that Punjab Kesari is not circulated in Tihar Jail. PW1 further deposed that he was lodged in Tihar Jail on 18.10.2000 and he was sent to custody in case u/s.3,4,5 Explosive Act and 307 IPC. PW1 deposed that he had exploded 3 local bombs in the main gate of Hon'bleSupreme Court of India. PW1 stated it to be incorrect that in the newspaper it was published that he had been accused of planting bombs. PW1 deposed that in the newspaper it was published that he had jumped bail and Orissa police and Delhi police raided him in his house. PW1 deposed that in the newspaper it was written that he had disappeared. PW1 stated it to be correct that defendant did not have intention to cause any hurt to him.
PW2 Sh. Prem Solanki, Warden, Jail no.4, Tihar in examination deposed that the plaintiff was never absconded from the jail and newspaper report regarding his alleged absconding is incorrect. PW2 in examination further deposed that on 11.03.2002 the plaintiff was in judicial custody in Tihar Jail. PW2 in cross examination deposed that plaintiff is in 6/15 #7# judicial custody in a case u/s. 3,4,5, Explosive Act. PW2 further deposed that he do not have any personal knowledge about the plaintiff except that he is a prisoner in jail.
PW3 Sh. Banshraj, Superintendent, Central Jail no.4, Tihar, New Delhi in examination deposed that Ex.PW3/1 shows that the accused in Jail since 18.10.2000 till date. PW3 further deposed that plaintiff never tried to abscond from the jail and his conduct was satisfactory. PW3 further deposed that on 11.03.2002 the plaintiff was in judicial custody in Tihar jail and no action was taken against the plaintiff by the jail authority at any time.
7. Despite opportunities defendant failed to led evidence and accordingly the defendant evidence was closed vide order dt. 05.09.2006.
8. Final arguments heard.
9. In the arguments advocate of plaintiff argued that 7/15 #8# the publication dt.11.03.2002 by defendant clearly states that the plaintiff was admitted on bail and after getting the bail he has been absconded. Advocate of plaintiff further argued that the report further states that the police is searching the plaintiff and is not able to find the plaintiff. Advocate of plaintiff further argued that this report is factually incorrect and since this is a incorrect report, this defamed the plaintiff. Advocate of plaintiff further argued that the evidence on record of plaintiff as well as of PW2 and PW3 being Superintendent Central Jail, Tihar clearly shows that the plaintiff was in jail since 18.10.2000 and till date plaintiff never absconded and his conduct in the jail is satisfactory. No action has been taken by the jail authorities against the plaintiff. Advocate of plaintiff further argued that in view of the evidence on record the defendant not only published incorrect fact but defamed the plaintiff also. Advocate of plaintiff further argued that the testimonies of PW'scould not be shaken by the defendant since there is no defendant evidence in the record. Hence the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant be decreed. 8/15
#9#
10. On the otherhand advocate of defendant argued that the news item was taken from another report and reported as received in the office of Editor was printed. Hence there is no malice towards the plaintiff. Advocate of defendant further argued that defamation has not been proved as plaintiff has to prove his reputation. Advocate of defendant further argued that plaintiff himself admitted that he is in jail from the last 25 years, hence no reputation of the plaintiff which has been damaged by the defendant. Advocate of defendant further argued that there is no evidence on record where the plaintiff was defamed. Accordingly, it is argued that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
11. My findings with respect to the issues are as follows:-
REGARDING ISSUE NO.1 Whether feelings of plaintiff were hurt by the publication carried out by the defendant on 11.03.2002 and he was defamed?OPP Keeping in view all the record, I feel that the issue 9/15 #10# be decided partly in favour of the plaintiff on the following grounds:-
Firstly, it is a fact that news item was published by the defendant in the newspaper 'PunjabKesari'dt. 11.03.2002 stating/reporting that plaintiff who had exploded bomb before the Hon'bleSupreme Court of India has absconded after obtaining bail. It is further reported that the Orissa police is searching for the plaintiff, however not succeeded.
Evidence on record shows that this part of the reported publication is factually incorrect as plaintiff remained in Central Jail, Tihar w.e.f. 18.10.2000. Evidence of PW3 dt. 04.04.2006 clearly shows that plaintiff never tried to abscond from the jail and no action was taken against the plaintiff by the jail authority at anytime. Hence this reported fact hurt the feelings of the plaintiff.
Secondly, with respect to the later part of issue no.1 i.e. 'whetherthe plaintiff was defamed',I feel that plaintiff was not defamed.
10/15
#11# Thirdly, the original newspaper dt. 11.03.2002 has not been filed. A document has to be proved by original and since original has not been filed, the later part of the issue no.1 has not been proved. Advocate of plaintiff could have prove the same by secondary evidence but no application was filed to this effect.
Fourthly, the evidence of PW1 shows that he was lodged in Bhuvneshwar jail on 01.11.97. It is further a fact that for the first time he went to jail in 1962 and remained in the custody for 7 and a half years. PW1 further deposed that again he went to jail on 23.01.81 and remained in jail for 4 and a half years. In total he remained in Bhuvneshwar jail for 17 years. PW1 further deposed that he remained in Hajaribad jail for 7 and a half year and also remained in Aurthor Road jail Bombay for one year. Presently he is lodged in Tihar Jail w.e.f. 18.10.2000 for exploding three local bombs in front of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Defamation can only against a person who has reputation. It is a fact that plaintiff is in jail continuously for 11/15 #12# over a period of 25 years, this means that he has no reputation to be defamed.
Sixthly, a fact further come on record that newspaper 'PunjabKesari'is not circulated in the Tihar Jail. Hence, there can be no question of injuring reputation in Tihar Jail where the plaintiff is lodged.
A fact also come on record that newspaper 'Punjab Kesari'is also not circulated in District Jajpur, Orissa where the plaintiff used to reside and permanently residing. Hence there is no question of injuring reputation of the plaintiff at his native place i.e. District Jajpur, Orissa.
It is further a fact that plaintiff has admitted that he had exploded three local bombs in the main gate of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
In view of above the issue no.1 is partly decided in favour of the plaintiff. Though it is held that the feelings of the plaintiff hurt but it is further held that the plaintiff was not defamed.
12/15
#13# REGARDING ISSUE NO.2 Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- or any other sum?OPP I have seen the file and feel that the issue no.2 be decided against the plaintiff on the following grounds:-
Firstly, plaintiff in the cross examination deposed that he remained in custody for 25 years in jails outside Delhi and he also deposed that he has been jail for 5 years in Delhi.
Secondly, it a fact come on record through evidence that plaintiff had exploded 3 local bombs in the main gate of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
Thirdly, Vide issue no.1 it is held that plaintiff reputation was not defamed through the news item published in the newspaper 'Punjab Kesari' dt.11.03.2002.
Fourthly, in case of defamation and damage, malice of publisher should be proved. Plaintiff has admitted in 13/15 #14# evidence that defendant do not have intention to cause any hurt to him. Accordingly, the malice against the plaintiff by the defendant has not been proved.
In view of above the issue no.2 is decided against the plaintiff and it is held that plaintiff is not entitled to decree in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/-.
12. In view of my findings on issues no.1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff against the defendant is dismissed with no order as to cost.
13. I feel that the newspaper 'Punjab Kesari' has reported wrong fact in the publication dt. 11.03.2002.
Moment the defendant came to know about the wrong publication it was the duty of the defendant to carried out correction or corrigendum but the defendant failed to do so.
I feel that now defendant should carried out correction or corrigendum with respect to the news item 14/15 #15# reported in the newspaper 'PunjabKesari'dt. 11.03.2002 that the fact of plaintiff absconding or jumping the bail and police searching the plaintiff is factually incorrect.
Defendant should do this as earliest as possible.
14. Initially plaintiff had not paid the court fees. Let him pay the advolerum court fees on his claim. Decree sheet be prepared after filing of the court fees.
15. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court DAYA PRAKASH
22.02.2007 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURTS
(typed 1+ 1) DELHI
15/15