Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Plaintiff claims that the milk received by it is a processed and subjected to stringent tests, sixteen in number and thereafter the processed milk which is ready for sale, is subjected to 21 tests enumerated in para 10 of the plaint.

6. Plaintiff's grievance is that the defendant through one of its channels called "Zee News" telecast the programme called "Inside Story" on 3.8.2003 at 9.30 P.M. titled as "Safed Doodh ka Kala Karobar". The said programme purported to be an investigation into how synthetic milk was being manufactured. During the course of the said investigation, the defendant claims to have got synthetic milk prepared. The programme shows that a can of synthetic milk was left outside and picked up by the van of Parag Dairy in Aligarh, U.P., along with other milk. The plaintiff procures a substantial quantity of milk from Parag Dairy. A representative of the defendant as a Lab Analyst is stationed at Parag Dairy. The programme depicts that sample of synthetic milk as presented at Parag Dairy cleared six quality tests. Thereafter the analyst tested the sample through machine which was hardly used, when the synthetic milk failed to clear the quality tests.

Plaintiff alleges that the programme had been created and aired so as to tarnish the image and reputation of the plaintiff company. It claims that the samples of either the synthetic milk or the dairy milk which were presented at Parag Dairy had not been taken in the presence of independent persons/witnesses or sealed. These have not even been tested by any independent laboratory. Plaintiff claims that there was no evidence to show that the milk presented at Aligarh plant of the Parag Dairy was the same which was poured as synthetic milk in front of camera. Plaintiff alleges that it appears that the sample of milk purported to be synthetic milk has been changed with the dairy milk, and presented as such. Similar is the position of the milk presented in two bottles for testing at plaintiff's laboratory. Here again neither the milk, claimed to be from the plaintiff's depot, was purchased or sealed in the presence of any independent person. Besides, there is nothing to show that the milk being a perishable item, had been properly stored. There was no evidence to show that the milk which was poured in the bottle from the pouch of Mother Dairy before camera, was the same which was presented for testing before the Depot Manager of the plaintiff company. Plaintiff claims that the government agencies have been taking sample of the plaintiff's milk and at no point of time government reported any infirmity in the quality of the milk. The Health Minister while appearing on defendants own channel stated that they had tested all the samples including those from Mother Dairy and did not detect urea in any of the samples. The tests have been carried over samples taken from 40 tanks of the private parties and 14 tankers of Mother Dairy. Plaintiff claims that the entire programme had been telecast and edited by the defendant with the sole object of sensationalism and to defame the plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that the same has been done at the behest of competitors. Reference is also made to a hand-bill issued by the Delhi Milk Scheme (DMS) Concessioneers and Depot Staff Welfare Organization (Regd.). The said hand-bill while seeking a reduction in DMS milk prices recapitulates the Zee News programme, showing the manufacture of synthetic milk supplied to Parag Dairy, and claims Parag Dairy buys lacs of ton of milk which is supplied to Mother Dairy and other dairies. It also recapitulates that Mother Dairy own milk failed to clear its laboratory tests.

19. A sample of the synthetic/adulterated milk prepared from urea was taken to the Parag Milk Dairy for testing. This had been done after the camera records the milk being poured into the containers. The container containing the synthetic milk and other containers being put into a van for transportation to Parag dairy. The milk was presented at the Parag dairy for testing. Mr.Nayyar mentions that the allegation of malafides of the plaintiff against the defendant was totally without any foundation. Till this stage, Mother Dairy had not come into picture at all. There was no reference made to Mother dairy or its products. It was only when the milk was presented for testing at the Parag dairy at Aligarh that it was learnt that Parag dairy, Aligarh was one of the suppliers of milk to Mother dairy. A representative, Mr.Vinay Kumar, of the Mother dairy was in charge of the Laboratory at Parag dairy. The sample of the synthetic milk was tested directly by him in the laboratory. The said synthetic milk as is shown in the program cleared six tests. It was only when for the seventh test, that a machine which had hitherto hardly been used was utilized, after removing dust there from, that the defect in the milk was discovered as per the telecast. Mr.Nayyar emphasized that defendants had acted in line of their public duty and following the tenets of investigative journalism, were only trying to ascertain the genuineness and efficacy of the testing mechanism to detect synthetic milk and assess quality.

20. The defendant after having found that the synthetic milk could not be detected by the Parag dairy's laboratory functioning under the personnel of Mother dairy, decided to investigate the testing process at the Mother dairy institution. Here two samples, one of Mother dairy milk and other of a local dairy were purchased. As shown in the programme the laboratory of Mother dairy failed the polypack of milk purchased from a Mother dairy booth. Mr.Nayyar submits that the defendants during trial would by evidence prove that it was synthetic milk, which was presented for testing at Parag Laboratory. Secondly, that it was milk purchased from Mother dairy which was put up for testing in the Mother dairy's Laboratory. These are questions of fact which the defendant would be required to duly prove by evidence during trial. Mr.Nayyar submitted that the defendants had acted bonafide and fairly and made bona fide fair comment on a matter of a wide public interest. The allegations of mala fides against Mother dairy are made in a very casual manner. At one stage, it was suggested that it is another public sector undertaking at the behest of whom this action had been taken, intending reference to Delhi Milk Scheme. During oral arguments, it was urged that it was at the instance of `Amul' that the defamatory of telecast of Mother Dairy, was made and shown. Mr.Nayyar submitted that the defendant was committed to make known to public, the deficiencies that existed in the testing procedure for milk. Further, either the requisite testing procedure was not available or if so available, it was not effective. He dispelled the argument that the defendants were motivated only by sensationalism and had not acted in good faith.