Judgment Ravi Nandan Sahay, J. 1. Petitioner no.1 Sri R. K. Karanjia is the Editor of hindi Weekly Magazine blitz, and petitioner No.2 is its publisher. Opposite party No.2 Sri Bindeshwar pathak is the Chairman of sulabh international, a social voluntary registered Organisation having its office at South Gandhi Maidan, Patna. Both the petitioners have been convicted under Sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default in payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Appellate Court. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant-opposite party No.2 filed a complaint petition before the chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, under sections 500 and 501 of the Indian penal Code against the petitioners. It is alleged in the complaint petition that the petitioners published an article in hindi Edition of the weekly magazine blitz dated 28-5-1983 under the heading "kanoon TAK BADAL DALE" for the purpose of maligning and defaming the reputation and fame of the complainant and his organisation. The offending passages are contained in paragraphs III and IV of the Report. 3. The question for consideration was whether paragraphs III and IV of the Report were defamatory. Para-III was re-production of the statement made by Jay Kumar Palit on the floor of the House that the complainant should be arrested for misusing the fund of the organisation. The other news item related to the statement of Munshilal Roy, an M. L. A. , Vidhan Sabha that Sulabh sansthan was bogus Organisation. Jay kumar Palit stated that the complainant was the biggest fraud. The relevant extract of the proceedings of Bihar Legislative Assembly was produced in Court. The Court found that full texts of the proceeding had not been quoted in the news- items. The plea of the petitioners was that under Article 361 (A) of the constitution of India the petitioners are fully protected from any prosecution. 4. The relevant extract of the proceedings of Bihar Legislative Assembly was produced in Court. The Court found that full texts of the proceeding had not been quoted in the news- items. The plea of the petitioners was that under Article 361 (A) of the constitution of India the petitioners are fully protected from any prosecution. 4. Article 361-A of the Constitution which was introduced in the Constitution 44th Amendment Act, 1978 provides as follows: "protection of publication of proceedings of Parliament and State legislatures.- (1) No. person shall be liable to any proceedings, civil or criminal, in any court in respect of the publication in a newspaper of a substantially true report of any proceedings of either House of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly, or, as the case may be, either House of the Legislature, of a State, unless the publication is proved to have been made with malice: provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to the publication of any report of the proceedings of a secret sitting of either House of Parliament or the legislative Assembly, or, as the case may be, either House of the Legislature, of a State. " 5. In Horbhajan Singh V/s. State of punjab, AIR 1961 Punjab 215, which is a case prior to the Amendment in the constitution, Tek Chand, J. , stated the law of immunity attaching speeches made on the floor of Legislature in the following terms: "50. An absolute immunity attaches to the speeches made on the floor of the vidhan Sabha. The members of the legislative Assembly and of the Parliament are absolutely privileged and they can make with impunity libellous statements while participating in the deliberation of the house and the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an action in respect of defamatory utterances by them as the members, under the law, are not amenable to civil or criminal action, despite the fact that the statements are grossly defamatory and deliberately false. This privilege, however, does not extend to a statement published by a member outside the House even though it may be an exact reproduction of what was said during the debate. This matter was settled in England, in an early case, R. V/s. Lord abingdon, (1794) 5 R. R.783. This privilege, however, does not extend to a statement published by a member outside the House even though it may be an exact reproduction of what was said during the debate. This matter was settled in England, in an early case, R. V/s. Lord abingdon, (1794) 5 R. R.783. In that case lord Abingdon had delivered a speech in the House of Lords during the course of which he had indulged in libellous invective against the character of one Mr. Sermon, an attorney. Lord Abingdon sent the printed version of his speech for publication in the newspapers. Lord Kenyon observed, that the privilege claimed by Lord abingdon was restricted to words spoken in the House of Lords and confined to its walls. Lord Abingdon was found guilty of having published the libel-charge and was sentenced to imprisonment and was also ordered to pay a fine. 51. The same principle was reiterated in R. V/s. Creevey, (1813) 14 R. R.427. It was held that - -a member of the House of commons may be convicted upon an indictment for a libel in publishing in a newspaper the report of a speech delivered by him in that House, if it contains libellous matter, although the publication be a correct report of such speech. Bayley J. said -a member of Parliament has undoubtedly the privilege for the purpose of producing parliamentary effect to speak in parliament boldly and clearly what he thinks conducive to that end. He may even for that purpose, if he thinks it right, cast imputations in Parliament against the character of any individual; and still he will be protected. But if he is to be at liberty to circulate those imputations elsewhere, the evil would be very extensive. No member therefore is at liberty so to do. 52. It follows that the members of the vidhan Sabha, if they had indulged in publishing speeches, libellous in character, in newspapers, they would not have been protected. Surely, the accused cannot escape the consequences of the criminal law of defamation by giving publicity to libellous utterances made by members on the floor of the Assembly. In this case it is to be noticed that the members of the Legislative Assembly, to whose speeches reference was made, did not make any imputations against the character of the complainant either inside or outside the assembly. In this case it is to be noticed that the members of the Legislative Assembly, to whose speeches reference was made, did not make any imputations against the character of the complainant either inside or outside the assembly. If any one of them had published libels to the world outside by issuing press statements or by addressing public meetings the protection of the Parliamentary privilege could not have been successfully claimed. It follows, that it is perilous, to repeat in public a libellous statement, even if its first publication in a House of Legislature is privileged. Each repetitions a fresh defamation and the reason, who has made the words of another his own, is liable to the same extent as if he had originated the story. It is equally well settled that previous libellous publication by another, of the same defamatory words, is neither an evidence of the truth nor proof of the exercise of due care and caution. " 6. In Sewak Ram V/s. R. K. Karanjiya, 1981 Cr. Law Journal 894, the petitioner No.1 of the application was prosecuted under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code for publishing defamatory statement in the magazine blitz and the news item was based on government report. Petitioner claimed protection under Sec.499 Exception ninth. It was held that the Journalists do not enjoy any special privilege, and have no greater freedom than others to make any imputation or allegations, sufficient to run in the reputation of a citizen. Journalists are in no better position than any other person. Learned appellate court in appeal has relied on its decision to hold the petitioners guilty under Sec.500,i. P. C. 7. In Dr. Jatish Chandra V/s. . Hari sadhan Mukherjee, AIR 1961 S. C.613, which was related to publication of some questions by the members of the west Bengal Assembly which was disallowed by the Speaker, the Supreme court held that so long as Parliament does not crystalise the legal position by its own legislation, the privileges, powers and immunities of a House of state Legislature or Parliament or of its member are the same as those of House of Commons. There is no absolute privilege attaching to the publication of extracts from proceedings in the House of Commons. There is no absolute privilege attaching to the publication of extracts from proceedings in the House of Commons. So far as a member of the house of Commons is concerned, he has an absolute privilege in respect of what he has spoken within four walls of the House, but there is only a qualified privilege in his favour even in respect of what he has himself said in the House, if he causes the same to be published in the public press. 8. After the amendment of the constitution, law has now crystalised and publication of proceedings of the House is privileged. The conviction of the petitioners is, therefore, unsustainable this application is accordingly allowed and the conviction of the petitioners is set aside and they are acquitted. Petition Allowed