JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—The petitioner, Ganesh Dass, has a grievance against the decisions of courts below. He was proceeded against alongwith one Thakur Ghandharv Singh under sections 500/501/109 of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint of Suram Singh. The trial court convicted both of them—Ganesh Dass (accused No. 1) for six months under section 500 and for six months under section 501 and a fine of Rs. 500 each under both the provisions and Thakur Ghandharv Singh (accused No. 2) for six months under section 500 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and to a fine of Rs. 500. The matter came before the Sessions Judge, Kangra, in two separate appeals, namely, Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1984 and Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1984. Here, the appeal of Ganesh Dass was allowed only to the extent that the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to two months under sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code each, to run concurrently, whereas the appeal of Thakur Ghandharv Singh was allowed in toto. Now, Ganesh Dass has approached this Court by way of this revision petition assailing thereby the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kangra, dated 7-3-1987 and prays to set aside the same and acquit him of the charges. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the accused is an Editor, Proprietor, Printer and Publisher of Urdu Weekly "Raju". It has its head office at Dhangu Chowk, Pathankot. It is alleged that the accused published defamatory imputations against the complainant in the said weekly on three occasions on 11-8-1980, 18-8-1980 and 4-9-1980. This weekly has circulation throughout Kangra District and it is alleged that this defamatory publication against the complainant was read by the public at large including Om Parkash and Bhola Ram Deputy Rangers in the Forest Department. 3. Injured by this defamatory publication, the complainant issued a registered notice (Ex. P. 5) on 1440-1980 calling upon the accused to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000 as damages. In answer to this, it was revealed by the accused that the publication of the news was based on the information supplied by accused Ghandharav Singh. The complainant complains that the imputations against him are absolutely false and they were published at the instance of accused No. 2 recklessly and without exercise of due care and caution. 15,000 as damages. In answer to this, it was revealed by the accused that the publication of the news was based on the information supplied by accused Ghandharav Singh. The complainant complains that the imputations against him are absolutely false and they were published at the instance of accused No. 2 recklessly and without exercise of due care and caution. It is further alleged that the publication of the news was without ascertainment of truth and the accused knew or had reasons to believe that the defamatory imputations were false and were likely to cause damage to the reputation of the complainant. It is further alleged that the reputation of the complainant had been seriously damaged by the false news published by accused No.1 and the offences committed were abetted by accused No.2. The complainant not only examined himself but also examined three more witnesses. In addition, the copies of the Weekly dated 11-8-1980, 18-8-1980 and 4-9-1980 were produced in evidence. On the other Hand, the accused explained his case in his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He produced Savitri Devi (D.W. 1) and Sada Ram (D.W. 2) in defence. Copy of resolution dated 7-2-1980 (Ex. D-1) has also been proved. The accused has not been clear and straightforward in placing his defence. He had been taking one stand after another besides being evasive while giving replies in answer to questions put to him. Accused No. 2 denied having supplied any information to accused No. 1 and stated that he was involved in the case due to enmity. 4. Although number of points fell for consideration before the Courts below, however, Shri M.L. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the accused, confined his submissions to two aspects of the matter only. Before they are taken up for examination, it is necessary to quote in brief, the material part of the publication relevant in this case : First publication dated 11-8-1980. "Suram Singh Guard Ke Jariya D.F.O. Nanak Chand urf Nanku ne Himachal ke jungle be Daregi Se Katwane Shuru Kar Diye." In this publication, the complainant has been described as a man of highly depraved character. It has been said that when accused Ghandharav Singh was a forest lessees, the complainant had molested a woman at Lodhwan. He not only gave her beatings but also tore her shalwar. It has been said that when accused Ghandharav Singh was a forest lessees, the complainant had molested a woman at Lodhwan. He not only gave her beatings but also tore her shalwar. It has further been stated that the complainant cut 63 Khair trees in connivance with Divisional Forest Officer, Nanak Chand and gave the same to some of his partner and thereafter attributed the cutting of the trees to the said forest lessee. Second publication dated 18-8-1980. "Kaya Nurpur Division Ka DFO issi Tarah jungle main Dake Marta Rahega ? Kaya yeh such hai ki DFO Nurpur ne Thakur Ghandharav Singh of Lodhwan se kuchh imdad mangi ? Kaya yeh bhi such hai ki Thakur Ghandharav Singh se jav Nakdi ki imdad na mili to use zalil karne ke liye har najayat have istemal kiye gaye......" This news item is in continuation of the one published on 11-8-1980. It publishes that the complainant got forest wealth cut stealthily at the instance of Divisional Forest Officer Nanak Chand and concocted a false case against accused Ghandharav Singh. Third Publication dated 4-9-1980 At this time, the publication was also in continuation of the previous publication and its caption was as under : "Thakur Suram Singh Guard Mehkama Janglat ne Badniyati se ek Garib Aurat ki Salwar Phar Dali". In the detail of it, it has been stated that the complainant once admitted to commit rape with a woman of village Lodhwan and on her refusal the complainant gave her beatings and when the lady did not agree to satisfy his lust, the complainant tore her shalwar. The complainant has been described as "badmash". The complainant was reprimanded and he saved his skin by begging pardon from the woman and he addressed her as a sister. However, it has also been published that "the Divisional Forest Officer Nanak Chand had ruined a noble contractor at the instance of his "tout" Suram Singh". Another defamatory imputation in the form of an interrogatory was also published and the same is also as under : "Does Suram Singh Guard presents Girls etc. also besides money to Nanak Chand" ? 5. Shri M.L. Sharma submits that no offence, coming within the purview of sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code has been committed by the petitioner. also besides money to Nanak Chand" ? 5. Shri M.L. Sharma submits that no offence, coming within the purview of sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code has been committed by the petitioner. Elaborating his submission, reference to these provisions was made and it was urged that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that these imputations were defamatory in character, in that event, they were protected because of two factors, namely, that the same fell under First and Ninth Exception to section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been stated that the information was supplied to him by Thakur Ghandharav Singh (accused No. 2) and the one relating to Smt. Savitri Devi was also verified by him besides supported by her own version as D.W. 1 and Sada Ram (D.W. 2), Pradhan Gram Panchayat. This aspect of the matter has been discussed by the Courts below and the concurrent view has been that the imputations constitute clear defamation and the petitioner was solely responsible for the publication thereof. My examination of the matter is also to the same effect when the statement of the complainant, his witnesses are seen in the light of the impugned defamatory imputations. Perusal of defence witnesses do not in any way exonerate the culpability of the accused. The statement of Smt. Savitri Devi (D.W. 1), if read properly, indicates nothing except the fact that the petitioner had intended to convey defamatory imputations against the complainant. Her version rather indicates that the facts published by the petitioner were not only exaggerations but also false to his very knowledge. There appears calculated attempt on the part of the petitioner to publish these defamatory statements one after the other and the contents of the statements are per se defamatory having clear tendency to harm the complainant. 6. The submission of Shri M.L. Sharma that the petitioner is an Editor, Printer and Publisher of the Weekly and, therefore, in a democracy he had every right to exercise this right under the Constitution, is thoroughly based on misconception. 6. The submission of Shri M.L. Sharma that the petitioner is an Editor, Printer and Publisher of the Weekly and, therefore, in a democracy he had every right to exercise this right under the Constitution, is thoroughly based on misconception. By now it has been held in a catena of cases that the freedom of Press is equal to and not better than the one available to an ordinary citizen ; rather print-media has the tendency to influence larger number of persons as against individuals and, therefore, more care has to be taken by their Editors, Printers and Publishers that before publishing anything with a tendency to affect any individual, the information is verified properly, seriously and thoroughly. In a democracy, freedom does not mean to publish anything even if the same is defamatory. Therefore, before anyone can escape criminal liability, the case has to be brought within the parameters of any of the exceptions to section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has failed to successfully invoke any of these exceptions, although a serious attempt was made by Shri M.L. Sharma in this regard. 7. It is further contended that the information was supplied to the petitioner by accused No. 2. The trial court had convicted this accused. However, he has been acquitted by the first appellate Court. Rightly so, since there is no cogent and convincing evidence to justify his conviction. His acquittal, therefore, further indicates that the petitioner was solely responsible for the commission of these offences and has been rightly convicted by the courts below. 8. The record of the case has been examined thoroughly. In my considered opinion, the judgments rendered by both the courts below are thoroughly apt, in accordance with the evidence on record and the legal principles involves in this case. The petitioner has been thoroughly reckless in publishing these defamatory imputations against the complainant. Another argument of Shri M. L. Sharma that the complainant has not specifically pleaded and proved that by this publication his reputation was harmed, is again without any substance. The complainant has not only pleaded but proved this aspect of the case. Even otherwise, as already observed, the imputations are per se defamatory. Their consequences on the reputation of the complainant are obvious. The same requires no proof. The complainant has not only pleaded but proved this aspect of the case. Even otherwise, as already observed, the imputations are per se defamatory. Their consequences on the reputation of the complainant are obvious. The same requires no proof. All such facts have been taken note of and dealt with exhaustively by the trial court as well as by the first appellate court. In revisional jurisdiction, I see no reason to take a different view than the one already taken by the courts below. No contrary view can possibly be taken in view of the cogent and convincing evidence on the record of this case. 9. Lastly, Sh. M.L. Sharma, made a compassionate plea that the accused-petitioner is an old man with a large family to support. It was also stated that the petitioner has closed the publication of the Weekly and is just looking after his family. In these circumstances, it is urged that the petitioner may be released under the provisions of the probation of the Offenders Act, 1958. 10. Looking to the fact that the matter pertains to the year 1980 and the petitioner was convicted on 23-5-1984 and has been feeling the pang of his conviction all along ; he is an old man and there is no evidence of his previous conviction, I upheld the conviction but instead of confirming the sentence, suspend the same and direct the release of the petitioner-accused under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 with a direction to be of good behaviour for a period of two years on execution of a bond with one surety to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during this period. The personal bond and the surety bond will be submitted by the accused-petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, within two months from today. The Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, will accept the same after receiving a report from the Probation Officer concerned and will inform this Court of any lapse, if any, committed by the petitioner during this period so that he is called upon to serve the sentence already imposed upon him. 11. It is further ordered that in case the accused fails to file the personal bond and surety bond, as ordered, within the above period, he will suffer the sentence already imposed by the first appellate court. Order accordingly. -