Case Note & Summary
By special leave, the Supreme Court heard an appeal against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the appellant's appeal against conviction under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant, publisher of a local Aligarh weekly 'Kaliyug', had published an article titled 'Ulta Chor Kotwal Ko Dante' on September 12, 1960, which stated that bribe money from plaintiffs and defendants entered the pockets of public prosecutors and assistant public prosecutors. The Public Prosecutor and eleven Assistant Public Prosecutors at Aligarh sought government sanction, which was conveyed by the Home Secretary under Section 198B(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to file a complaint against the appellant in the Court of Session at Aligarh for defaming Assistant Public Prosecutor R.K. Sharma and other police prosecuting staff. The Public Prosecutor filed a complaint under Section 500 IPC. The Sessions Judge convicted the appellant, holding the statements defamatory and not protected by exceptions 3 and 9 to Section 499, and sentenced him to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200. The High Court dismissed the appeal. The appellant raised several contentions: that the sanction was general and not with respect to defamation of any particular prosecutor; that intention to harm reputation of a particular individual or group was not proved; that there was no evidence that the remarks were defamatory of any particular group; that the prosecution did not prove that the defamed group had a reputation capable of being harmed; and that the remarks were for public good. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions. On the sanction point, it held that the government sanction was specifically in respect of defamation of R.K. Sharma and the other prosecuting staff of the Government, and therefore valid. The Public Prosecutor was competent to restrict the complaint to the prosecuting staff at Aligarh even if the sanction could cover the entire state prosecuting staff. The Court noted that although the article did not expressly mention the Aligarh prosecuting staff, the context of the local weekly and circumstances showed the remarks referred to that staff. On the second point, the Court interpreted Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC as making it clear that defamation can be of an individual or of a collection of persons. A collection of persons must be identifiable so that one can say with certainty that the particular group has been defamed as distinguished from the rest of the community. The prosecuting staff of Aligarh, and even the prosecuting staff in Uttar Pradesh, was such an identifiable group. Thus it was not essential that the defamed person be an individual. On the third point, the Court held that the impugned remarks were per se defamatory of the group. The article's tenor did not indicate any public good purpose; rather, it implied that public prosecutors and assistant public prosecutors were corrupt, thereby harming their reputation. The Court reaffirmed the presumption that every person has a good reputation unless proved otherwise. Therefore, the prosecution was not required to lead evidence of actual reputation harm. The lower courts were right in rejecting the protection of Exceptions 3 and 9 and in convicting the appellant. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Sanction for Prosecution of Defamation Against Public Servant - Section 198B(c) Code of Criminal Procedure - Sanction for defamation of identified group of prosecuting staff valid - The State Government conveyed sanction for filing complaint under Section 500 IPC against the editor concerning defamatory remarks against Assistant Public Prosecutor R.K. Sharma and other police prosecuting staff of the Government. The sanction was specific to that group and not a general sanction; the Public Prosecutor was competent to restrict complaint to defamation of that group at Aligarh. Held that the sanction suffered from no defect. B) Criminal Law - Defamation - Explanation 2 to Section 499 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Collection of Persons as Defamed - Prosecuting staff at Aligarh or Uttar Pradesh is identifiable group - Imputation concerning a company, association, or collection of persons as such can amount to defamation; the prosecuting staff of Aligarh and even the State prosecuting staff constituted such an identifiable collection. Held that it is not essential that the person defamed be an individual. C) Criminal Law - Defamation - Section 499 and Exceptions 3 and 9 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Per Se Defamatory Remarks and Public Good - Allegations of bribery by public prosecutors are defamatory without proof of actual reputation harm; no public good shown - The impugned remarks were per se defamatory of the group; they did not indicate any public good purpose and could lead readers to believe prosecutors were corrupt; presumption of good reputation stands unless rebutted. Held that the lower courts rightly rejected the protection of Exceptions 3 and 9.
Issue of Consideration
Whether sanction under Section 198B(c) CrPC was valid when it referred to a group of prosecuting staff; whether such staff constituted a 'collection of persons' capable of defamation under Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC; whether the published remarks were defamatory and not protected by public good exceptions; whether proof of actual reputation harm or specific intention was necessary
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction under Section 500 IPC. The sanction under Section 198B(c) CrPC was held valid; the prosecuting staff at Aligarh and Uttar Pradesh was an identifiable collection of persons under Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC; the impugned remarks were per se defamatory and not protected by Exceptions 3 and 9; the lower courts correctly convicted the appellant.
Law Points
- Defamation may be of an individual or an identifiable collection of persons under Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC
- prosecuting staff of Aligarh/Uttar Pradesh is an identifiable collection
- sanction under Section 198B(c) CrPC may validly cover defamation of a group
- imputations of bribery against public prosecutors are per se defamatory
- public good exceptions under Exceptions 3 and 9 require positive proof and are not made out by general allegations
- presumption of good reputation stands unless rebutted
- intention to harm reputation is inferred from nature of imputation
