Case Note & Summary
The appellant, S. Nagaraj, was the complainant in a defamation case against the respondent, K. Nanda Kumar, an auditor. The appellant alleged that he had borrowed Rs. 50,000 from the respondent and executed a Memorandum of Undertaking dated 7.12.1997 to repay the debt in monthly installments of Rs. 5,000. After repaying the entire amount, the appellant demanded the return of the document via a notice (Exhibit P-2). The respondent replied with two notices (Exhibits P-3 and P-5), which the appellant claimed contained defamatory imputations against his character and conduct. The appellant filed a complaint under Section 500 IPC. The trial court acquitted the respondent, holding that the alleged defamatory statements were not published to a third party, as the only witness examined by the appellant admitted in cross-examination that he had not read the contents of Exhibit P-5 nor had it been read over to him by the accused. The trial court also observed that the statements might fall within the Ninth and Tenth Exceptions of Section 499 IPC. The appellant appealed against the acquittal. The High Court, after hearing the appellant in person and perusing the record, upheld the acquittal. The court noted that the essential ingredient of defamation is publication to a third party, and in this case, there was no evidence that the statements were brought to the attention of any third party. The court found no perversity in the trial court's findings and dismissed the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Defamation - Publication - Essential Ingredient - Section 499, 500 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The court held that for an offence of defamation, the imputation must be made or published to a third party. In the absence of evidence that the alleged defamatory statements were brought to the attention of any third party, the essential ingredient of publication is not satisfied. (Paras 2-4) B) Criminal Law - Defamation - Exceptions 9 and 10 - Good Faith - Section 499 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The trial court observed that the statements in reply notices may fall within the Ninth and Tenth Exceptions of Section 499 IPC, which protect imputations made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it or of any other person. (Para 2) C) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - Section 378 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The High Court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, will not interfere unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or unreasonable. Here, the trial court's conclusion that there was no publication was based on evidence and not perverse. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the statements made in reply notices by the accused constitute defamation under Section 500 IPC, particularly when there is no evidence of publication to a third party.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC.
Law Points
- Defamation requires publication to a third party
- Exceptions 9 and 10 of Section 499 IPC apply to statements made in good faith for protection of interests
- Acquittal upheld when essential ingredient of publication is not proved
