High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Revision Petition in Defamation Case — Conviction for Criminal Defamation Under Sections 499, 500, 501 IPC Upheld. Concurrent findings of fact by trial and appellate courts cannot be interfered with in revision unless perverse or illegal.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Prosecution
  • 81
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, B.S. Shivaprasad, was the printer, publisher and acting editor of a newspaper. He was tried in C.C.No.21429/2001 before the JMFC, II Court, Mangalore, for offences under Sections 499, 500, and 501 IPC (defamation). The trial court convicted him on 28.10.2005. He appealed to the Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, in Criminal Appeal No.387/2005, which confirmed the conviction on 1.3.2010. Aggrieved, he filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Karnataka. The respondent was M/s. Mangalore Catholic Co-operative Bank Ltd. The petitioner argued that the publication was not defamatory and that the courts below erred. The High Court, after hearing through video conferencing, reserved orders on 13.08.2020 and pronounced on 26.08.2020. The court found that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and not perverse. The revision petition was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Defamation - Sections 499, 500, 501 IPC - Revision - The petitioner, a printer, publisher and acting editor of a newspaper, was convicted for publishing defamatory matter against a co-operative bank. The trial court and appellate court concurrently found the publication defamatory and not covered by exceptions. The High Court, in revision, held that the concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless perverse or illegal. The revision petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the concurrent findings of conviction for defamation under Sections 499, 500, and 501 IPC warrant interference in revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The criminal revision petition is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 1.3.2010 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore, in Criminal Appeal No.387/2005, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.10.2005 passed by the JMFC (II Court), Mangalore, in C.C.No.21429/2001, is upheld.

Law Points

  • Defamation
  • Criminal defamation
  • Section 499 IPC
  • Section 500 IPC
  • Section 501 IPC
  • Revision petition
  • Concurrent findings
  • Limited scope of revision
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (KAR) (08) 74

Criminal Revision Petition No.823 of 2010

2020-08-26

Dr. H.B. Prabhakara Sastry

Smt. Deepika Joshi for M/s. Jayakumar S. Patil, Associates (for petitioner); Sri M. Vijayakrishna Bhat (for respondent)

B.S. Shivaprasad

M/s. Mangalore Catholic Co-operative Bank Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal revision petition against conviction for defamation

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court

Filing Reason

Petitioner was convicted for publishing defamatory matter against the respondent bank

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted on 28.10.2005 in C.C.No.21429/2001; appellate court confirmed on 1.3.2010 in Criminal Appeal No.387/2005

Issues

Whether the publication was defamatory under Section 499 IPC Whether the concurrent findings of conviction warrant interference in revision

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the publication was not defamatory and that the courts below erred Respondent supported the concurrent findings

Ratio Decidendi

In a revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C., the High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or illegal. The courts below had properly appreciated the evidence and found the publication defamatory.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner herein who was tried in the Court of learned J.M.F.C., II Court, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada ... in C.C.No.21429/2001, for the offences punishable under Section 499 read with Sections 500 and 501 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ... was convicted for the said offences and sentenced accordingly vide its judgment dated 28.10.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.387/2005, before the learned Prl.Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore ...

Procedural History

The petitioner was tried in C.C.No.21429/2001 before JMFC, II Court, Mangalore, and convicted on 28.10.2005. He appealed to the Principal Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, in Criminal Appeal No.387/2005, which confirmed the conviction on 1.3.2010. He then filed the present criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Karnataka.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 499, 500, 501
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 397, 401
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Revision Petition in Defamation Case — Conviction for Criminal Defamation Under Sections 499, 500, 501 IPC Upheld. Concurrent findings of fact by trial and appellate courts cannot be interfered with in revision unl...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Prevention of Corruption Act Case Due to Lack of Evidence of Demand for Illegal Gratification. Conviction Overturned as Proof of Demand is a Sine Qua Non Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption A...