Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY in Ravikumar vs B A Harish Gowda on 31 May, 2022Matching Fragments
20. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.184 OF 2014 and connected petitions in the case of SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW & ORS, wherein the Apex Court has taken note of the offences under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC and held that, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. "Public good" has to be treated to be a fact. The onus of proving these two ingredients, namely, truth of the imputation and the publication of the imputation for the public good, is on the accused.
21. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW AND OTHERS reported in (2016) 7 SCC 221, wherein the Apex Court has discussed in detail with regard to Sections 499 and 500 of IPC regarding criminal defamation has its own independent identity and law relating to defamation has to be understood as it stood at the time when the Constitution came into force.
22. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SUKRA MAHTO VS. BASDEO KUMAR MAHTO AND ANOTHER reported in 1971 (1) SCC 885, wherein the Apex Court discussed with regard to Section 499 of IPC, Ninth Exception and also with regard to Section 52, good faith and public good, both have to be satisfied and degree of proof that has to be offered by the accused.
43. The learned counsel for the complainant in support of his arguments, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW AND OTHERS in W.P.(Criminal) No.184 of 2014 reported in (2016) 7 SCC 221, wherein, the Apex Court taken note of the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC and held that if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Public good has to be treated to be a fact. The onus of proving these two ingredients namely., truth of the imputation and the publication of the imputation for the public good is on the accused. Further, the Apex Court discussed in detail Sections 499 and 500 of IPC, regarding criminal defamation has its own independent identity and law relating to defamation has to be understood as it stood at the time when the Constitution came into force.
61. In the judgment of Subramanian Swamy's case (supra), the Apex Court has held that the onus of proving these two ingredients, namely, truth of the imputation and the publication of the imputation for the public good, is on the accused and the same has not been discharged by the accused.
62. When such being the case, I do not find any error committed by both the Courts in considering the material on record. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the revisional jurisdiction to set aside the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC.