KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE Plaintiff Appellant has preferred this Regular First Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21. 1. 1995 passed in O. S. No. 8/90 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge, Hubli dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for the relief of award of damages and permanent injunction. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff on the date of the suit was working as a Principal of the Government Junior Technical School in Hubli since 1986. It is his case that he comes from a respectable family and commands an unblemished reputation both as a Principal and also as a man and that his service record is clean. In public, his reputation is good and the plaintiff has been living up to his reputation which he values more than anything else. The plaintiff does not even know the defendants personally or otherwise. Some persons with vested interest and malafide intention to defame the plaintiff had been involved with defendant in publishing the articles. The second defendant is the editor, Printer and Publisher of a Kannada Fortnightly by name Tantrika Jwala". In the issue dated 16-31 October 1989 on Page 2 under the caption of TJTOFO ofcoaj^eajtorarttf ckd> zjojj5rt the second defendant got published a letter written by the first defendant to the second defendant. The said article alleges that the plaintiff as for his personal use got manufactured four steel racks in the workshop of the school during March and July 1989, with only steel purchased by him and that the labour, electricity and other apparatus were of the Government, and further imputes that a "tricycle" was manufactured in the month of July 1989 entirely at the cost of the Government for his daughter. The third allegation is that a teak-wood stool was got prepared and by paying only Rs. 7/- the said article was carried home by the plaintiff. The said article in question is published without any basis and it refers to the plaintiff as a looter and that the school will be destroyed at his hands, etc. In view of the aforesaid publication of the above article, the reputation of the plaintiff is lowered and stands damaged and tarnished in the public esteem and in the eyes of the superiors, colleagues and students. In view of the aforesaid publication of the above article, the reputation of the plaintiff is lowered and stands damaged and tarnished in the public esteem and in the eyes of the superiors, colleagues and students. ( 3 ) ALL the three allegations mentioned above are totally false, baseless and imaginary and the publication of the same being obviously without verifying the truth and is opposed to the journalistic ethics. Subsequent to the publication, on 29. 11. 1989 the Director of technical Education, Prof. B. N. Krishnamurthy from Bangalore visited the institution. In the course of his visit he chose to reprimand the plaintiff, without any reasons, in the presence of the subordinates of the plaintiff which the director never did before. This is a direct sequel to the publication. Further it is said that the staff, students and the public at large had begun to see the plaintiff with suspicion and doesn't see respectful as before. Even the close friends and relatives of the plaintiff had begun to make discreet enquiries. It is said that alt this had put the plaintiff in a very awkward position and embarrassing situation. This had occurred due to the sequel to the publication. Therefore it is said that the plaintiff had suffered defamation, disrepute owning to the publication as a result of which he had suffered mental trauma, agony and tension and he had also spent sleepless nights. ( 4 ) THEREFORE the plaintiff got issued a legal notice through his advocate demanding a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs jointly and severally from both the defendants giving 10 days time to comply with the demand made thereon. The legal notice sent to the defendant No. 1 was returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement as "not known" and "not claimed". The defendant No. 2 who was duly served with the legal notice sent an evasive reply. In the reply instead of being apologetic or compensating the plaintiff the defendant No. 2 had asserted his action justifying the same and had also dared to initiate action against the plaintiff. The plaintiff therefore was compelled to institute a Criminal complaint for defamation under section 500 I. P. C. against the defendants in P. C. 6/90 on 8th January 1990 in the II Additional J. M. F. C. Court Hubli wherein the Hon'ble magistrate was pleased to issue process against both the accused on 12. The plaintiff therefore was compelled to institute a Criminal complaint for defamation under section 500 I. P. C. against the defendants in P. C. 6/90 on 8th January 1990 in the II Additional J. M. F. C. Court Hubli wherein the Hon'ble magistrate was pleased to issue process against both the accused on 12. 1. 1990. The defendants had not spared the plaintiff even from his physical handicap of slight deafness which had never come in the way of his efficient administration which had added insult to the injury. Instead of mending the mischief perpetrated the defendant no. 2 had proceeded to inflict more injury by his subsequent publications and had also threatened to do more such perfidies. Therefore the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit for the relief of damages for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from writing, printing, editing, publishing and circulating any kind of defamating article or articles against the plaintiff in "tantrika Jwala" or any other magazine. In the suit, the summons could not be served on the first defendant. Therefore the plaintiff filed a memo giving him up. However the second defendant has contested the suit by filing detailed written statement. In the written statement the second defendant has denied all the allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint. In addition to that he has contested that the defendant No. 1 is the resident of hubli who knows all the undue acts of the plaintiff who contacted the Director of Technical Education, Bangalore in writing giving particulars of misuse of his position as Principal, etc. The defendant no. 1 is the person who revealed the truth in the matter. Further it is asserted in the written statement that it is true that the plaintiff has for his personal use got manufactured four steel racks in the workshop of the school during March and July 1989, with only steel purchased by him and that the labour, electricity and other apparatus were of the Government and further it is true that a "tricycle" was manufactured in the month of July 1989 entirely at"the cost of the government for his daughter. Third allegation is that a teak-wood stool was got prepared and by paying only Rs. 7/- the said article was carried home by the plaintiff. Third allegation is that a teak-wood stool was got prepared and by paying only Rs. 7/- the said article was carried home by the plaintiff. Further it is stated that the defendant No. 2 has not at all committed any act of defamation of the plaintiff and that the act of the defendant falls under exception 1 and also exceptions to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The 2nd defendant being the editor of a fortnightly has got the privilege to publish news in the interest of public at large. Further it is averred that the defendant is not having any malice or intention to harm the reputation of the plaintiff. But that this defendant has published the said news after due verification and on the basis of the written information from the defendant No. 1. ( 5 ) ON the aforesaid pleadings the Court below framed the following issues:-1) Does the plaintiff prove that the undue publication in 'tantrika Jwala' dated 16. 3. 1989 is defamatory and his reputation is lowered in the eyes of public? 2) Does plaintiff prove that he is entitled to damages to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-? 3) Does 2nd defendant prove that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? 4) Does the 2nd defendant prove his act comes within exception No. 1 and other exceptions to Section 499 IPC? 5) Does 2nd defendant prove that he had published news on the basis of written information furnished by defendant No. 1? 6) Is the plaintiff entitled to reliefs of damages and injunction? 7) To what decree or order?the plaintiff in support of his case examined himself as PW1 and examined 3 witnesses namely PW2, PW3 and PW4 and marked exhibits P1 to P4, the documents to substantiate his claim. The second defendant on his part has examined himself as DW1 and he has examined a reporter as DW2 and has got marked Exhibits d-1 to D-9, the documents to substantiate his defence. On ah appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both the parties, the learned Trial Judge recorded a finding that it cannot be stated that the publication dated 16. 10. 1989 is defamatory and that the plaintiff's respect has been lowered in the eyes of the public. Consequently he has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to a damage of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. 10. 1989 is defamatory and that the plaintiff's respect has been lowered in the eyes of the public. Consequently he has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to a damage of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. Further the Court below has held that the second defendant has proved that his act of publication comes within the exception 1 and 9 of Section 499 of the IPC. ( 6 ) THE learned Trial Judge also recorded a finding that the second defendant has failed to prove that he had published the news on the basis of the written information furnished by the defendant No. 1. He held that the Court has fully got the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and on the question of injunction, the learned Trial Judge was of the opinion that in case of Freedom of press, injunction cannot be granted. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded, the plaintiff suit was dismissed. ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment and decree the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. Sri Chaitanya Hegde, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted before me that the entire approach of the court below is perverse. The learned Trial Judge proceeded with an assumption that it is for the plaintiff to establish that the imputations published are false and it is only thereafter the burden shifts to the defendant to establish the truthfulness of the imputations made in the publication. Secondly the learned Counsel submitted that when the defendant has taken a specific stand that what is published is nothing but truth, then the entire burden of justifying the imputation made in the publication rests on the defendant. In this view of the matter, when the defendant has not justified his action, the Court below has committed an error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. Thirdly he contends that the Court below looks into the documents, events and other material on record which came into existence subsequent to the publication as the justification for the imputations made in the publication which is wholly impermissible in law. Lastly he submitted that the second defendant being the editor, Writer, Printer and Publisher, before he publishes any defamatory article in his paper, should take all reasonable precautions and verify the truth of the statement. Lastly he submitted that the second defendant being the editor, Writer, Printer and Publisher, before he publishes any defamatory article in his paper, should take all reasonable precautions and verify the truth of the statement. The plea of good faith implies the making of a genuine effort to read the truth and the mere belief in the truth without there being reasonable grounds for such a plea is not synonymous with good faith and the evidence on record discloses that the second defendant made no enquiries to find out the truth or otherwise of the imputations before publishing the same and therefore he is liable for damages. ( 8 ) SMT. Nalini Venkatesh appearing for the respondent per contra contended that in order to find out whether there was any justification for publishing the aforesaid defamatory statements, what is to be considered is the conduct and the reputation of the plaintiff prior to the publication and subsequent to the publication and on consideration of all this, if the defendant is able to justify the publication, then on the ground of probabilities, as held by the supreme Court the defendant in this case has proved the justification which he has put forth in the case. Secondly she contends that the defendant must prove the justification of the defamation matter alleged but he may not prove the literal truth of every fact which he has stated, but it is enough if he proves the substantial truth of every material fact and therefore she submits that in the instant case, the said test has been satisfied by the defendant and therefore the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit do not call for any interference. Lastly she contended that the conduct of the plaintiff in filing a memo giving up his claim against the first defendant who is also alleged to be responsible for the defamation of the plaintiff is fatal to the case of the plaintiff. Therefore she submitted that the order of dismissal do not call for interference by this Court and further that the defendant has established that the plaintiff has no reputation at all which could be defamed and therefore the question of awarding any damages on the ground of defamation does not arise. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid rival contentions the points that arise for my consideration in this appeal are as hereunder:-1. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid rival contentions the points that arise for my consideration in this appeal are as hereunder:-1. Whether the second defendant proves that the defamatory remarks about the plaintiff published in his paper were true; 2. Whether the defendants prove that their case falls within exception 1 and 9 of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code; 3. Whether giving up of the claim against the first defendant by the plaintiff is fatal to the suit; 4. In the event defamation is proved, what is the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled to; 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction sought for;before going into the rival contentions it is necessary to look into the law of defamation. In the LAW OF TORTS by Ramaswamy iyer, Eighth Edition at Page 208 the learned author says about the 'points to be proved in an action for defamation''. He says that the plaintiff should allege and prove:a) a defamatory statement or representation concerning him, and b) Publication of it by the defendant to a third person or persons. On proof of these facts the plaintiff makes out his case. It is then for the defendant to establish one of the defences recognised by law. It is unnecessary for the plaintiff to prove the following facts, though in England and also here it has been customary to allege them in the plaintiff's pleading :- (a) Falsity of the statement. It is for the defendant to prove that it is true, (b) Malice of the defendant. In every false and defamatory statement malice is legally presumed. But when the defendant takes and substantiates the defence of privilege or fair comment the plaintiff has to prove express or actual malice to rebut the defence. In the same book at page 228 dealing with Justification, the learned author says that,"in a civil action, the defendant has to plead and prove the truth of the defamatory words and not merely his belief in their truth, though honest. If the words are true, he escapes liability however improper his motives may have been. The defendant should take great care before he raises this defence because his failure to prove it would generally aggravate damages. If the words are true, he escapes liability however improper his motives may have been. The defendant should take great care before he raises this defence because his failure to prove it would generally aggravate damages. " ( 10 ) IN CLERK AND LINDSELL ON TORTS, 14th edition, thelearned authors dealing with defamation at page 1664, has stated as horeunder:"prima facie the publication of defamatory matter is a cause of action. The plaintiff must in his pleading be able to set out with reasonable certainty the alleged defamatory words. He must a!sc allege in his pleading that the imputation published is false, and it is usual, though not necessary, to allege that it is malicious; but the burden of proof of neither of these allegations lies upon him In fact no plaintiff was ever non-suited for failing to prove malice in the first instance, and further the law assumes in his favour the prima facie falsity of the statement in question. It is not to be assumed that anyone is of bad character, and therefore defamation of an individual is taken to be false until it is proved to be true. " ( 11 ) FURTHER, the learned authors dealing with Justification and Facts alleged must be substantially true, say at page 1721 that,"the allegations of which the plaintiff complains may be either statements of fact or matters of comment or inference. The defendant must prove the justification of the defamatory matter as alleged, but he need not prove the literal truth of every fact which he has stated. It is enough if he prove the substantial truth of every material fact. Where the charge against the plaintiff is general in its nature he is entitled to particulars of the facts relied upon in support of the plea of justification. And in such a case the defendant may give particulars of facts occurring within a reasonable time after the publication of the libel which go to show the existence of a tendency or character such as the plaintiff is alleged in the libel to possess, since the law will not allow a man to recover damages for injury to a character he is in fact not entitled to bear". ( 12 ) COMING to the case law on the point, in the case of HARBHAJAN SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER, the supreme Court while dealing with the nature and scope of onus of proof which the accused has to discharge in answer to charge of defamation has laid down the following ingredients:-" (D): The nature and scope of the onus of proof which the accused has to discharge in seeking the protection of Except. 9 to Section 499 is as under:- (i) If it is shown that the accused has led evidence to show" that he acted in good faith, and by the test of probabilities that evidence establishes his case, he will be entitled to claim the benefit of Except. 9. (ii) The proof of truth of the impugned statement is not an ingredient of the Ninth Exception as it is of the first; under the ninth Exception it is not necessary, and indeed it is immaterial, to consider whether the accused has strictly proved the truth of the allegations made by him. (iii) It is true that the mere plea that the accused believed that what he stated was true by itself, will not sustain his case of good faith under the Ninth Exception. Simple belief or actual belief by itself is not enough. It must be shown that the belief in the impugned statement had a rational basis and was not just a blind simple belief. That is where the element of the due care and attention plays an important role. If before making the statement the accused did not show due care and attention (see Section 52), that would defeat his plea of good faith. But it must be remembered that good faith does not require logical infallibility. ILR 4 Cal 124 and ILR 31 Bom 293, Rel. on. (iv) It is not possible to lay down any rigid rule or test for deciding whether an accused person acted in good faith under the Ninth Exception. But it must be remembered that good faith does not require logical infallibility. ILR 4 Cal 124 and ILR 31 Bom 293, Rel. on. (iv) It is not possible to lay down any rigid rule or test for deciding whether an accused person acted in good faith under the Ninth Exception. The question has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case, what is the nature of the imputation made under what circumstances did it come to be made, what is the status of the person who makes the imputation; was there any -malice in his mind when he made the said imputation, was any enquiry made by him before he made it, are there reasons to accept his story that he act with due care and attention and was satisfied that the imputation was true? These and other considerations would be relevant in deciding the plea of good faith under the Ninth Exception. (v) Absence of personal malice may be a relevant fact in dealing with the accused's plea of good faith, but its significance or importance cannot be exaggerated. The accused will have to show that he acted with due care and attention, even in the absence of personal malice. Further it has been held, where to the charge of defamation under section 500, Penal Code, the accused invokes the aid of Exception (9) to Section 499, good faith and public good have both to be established. The failure to prove good faith would exclude the application of the Ninth Exception in favour of the accused even if the requirement of public good is satisfied. Further it is held :- "where an accused person pleads an Exception he must justify his plea, but the degree and character of proof which he is expected to furnish in support of the plea, cannot be equated with the degree and character of proof expected from the prosecution which is required to prove its case. The onus on the accused may well be compared to the onus on a party in civil proceedings; just as in civil proceedings the Court which tries an issue makes its decision by adopting the test of probabilities, so much criminal Court hold the plea made by the accused proved, if a preponderance of probability is established by the evidence led by him. "further it has been held:-"where the accused is called upon to prove that his case falls under an Exception, law treats the onus as discharged if he succeeds in proving a preponderance of probability. As soon as the preponderance of probability is established the burden shifts to the prosecution which still has to discharge its original onus. Basically, the original onus never shifts and the prosecution has, at all stages of the case, to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. " ( 13 ) IN the aforesaid judgment decided by the Supreme Court,the High Court dealing with the 9th Exception to Section 499 of the indian Penal Code had to say this :-" (D) In the context of the law of defamation, the requirement of good faith, in publishing an article derogatory to the character of the complainant, is not satisfied, by merely showing a belief on the part of the publisher in the truth of the publication. It has to be shown that the publication had been honestly made in the belief of its truth, and also, upon reasonable grounds for such a belief, after the exercise of such means to verify its truth, as would be taken by a man of ordinary prudence, under like circumstances. A publisher of a defamatory statement can only be protected if he shows that he had taken all reasonable precautions and then had a reasonable and well-grounded belief in the truth of the statement. The plea of "good faith", implies the making of a genuine effort to reach the truth and a mere belief in the true, without there being reasonable grounds for such a plea, is not synonymous with good faith. Exception 9, therefore, covers two matters, proof of good intention and the exercise of reasonable care and skill, having regard to the occasion and the circumstances. Mere subjective belief, without any objective basis, is not a dependable criterion for substantiating the ninth exception; an unnecessary aspersion is indicative of want of good faith. Exception 9, therefore, covers two matters, proof of good intention and the exercise of reasonable care and skill, having regard to the occasion and the circumstances. Mere subjective belief, without any objective basis, is not a dependable criterion for substantiating the ninth exception; an unnecessary aspersion is indicative of want of good faith. " ( 14 ) THE Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of DONGARSINGH vs KRISHAN KANT WAS AND ANOTHER dealing with Exception 9 to Section 499 has held as under :-" (B):- in the case of publication of a defamatory matter actual source of information on which the person accused has acted and the justifiability of his so acting ought to be considered. If he has not taken proper care and acted on a gossip and the complainant is thereby defamed he ought not to escape consequences on the ground that he has promptly contradicted the incorrect report. The culpability in such cases does not depend upon the circumstance whether he has tried to undo the wrong which he has committed or not but upon the fact whether he has acted with care and attention or has done so rashly or negligently. Attempt to undo the mischief may exhibit want of malice or fear of the consequence. But even if it indicates absence of malice that is not enough to prove good faith as defined under the Code. In the matter of defamation the position of 'newspapers' is not in any way different from that of members of the public in general. The responsibility in either case is the same. The degree of care and attention is no way less to the case of newspaper publications than that required from ordinary men. It is no defence in the matter of defamation for the accused to say that he has acted on the information given to him by another. It is for him to establish that the source on which he acted was the proper source on which he is entitled to act and he did so with care and circumspection. When a suspected murder case was under investigation advanced publication of news against the complainant with bold headlines can hardly be said to be for public good. It is for him to establish that the source on which he acted was the proper source on which he is entitled to act and he did so with care and circumspection. When a suspected murder case was under investigation advanced publication of news against the complainant with bold headlines can hardly be said to be for public good. " ( 15 ) THE Allahabad High Court in the case of RADHA KRISHENPRATAP SINGH vs H. S. BATES dealing with the defence of justification, pleading and proof had to say as under :-" In an action for damages for defamation, the defendant who wants to put forward the defence of justification must not only raise the plea in his written statement but should prove it strictly by leading evidence that the defamatory remarks about the plaintiff were true. The onus to prove justification always lies on the defendant". ( 16 ) THE word "defamation" is defined in Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as hereunder :-"499. Defamation :- Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or, publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. " ( 17 ) THEREFORE defamation is the wrong done by a person to another's reputation by words, signs, or visible 'representations. A statement or representation is defamatory when it has a tendency to injure a person's reputation. A defamatory statement is one which exposes a person to contempt, hatred or ridicule, or tends to injure him in his profession or trade, or causes him to be shunned or avoided by his neighbours. ( 18 ) PRIMA facie the publication of defamatory statements gives raise to a cause of action. When the defendant sets up a defence of justification, the plaintiff is not required to prove the falsity of the statement and malice on the part of the defendant Malice is legally presumed. In a civil action the defendant has to plead and prove the truth of the defamatory words and not merely his belief in their truth though honest. If the words are true he escapes liability however improper his motives have been. In a civil action the defendant has to plead and prove the truth of the defamatory words and not merely his belief in their truth though honest. If the words are true he escapes liability however improper his motives have been. He need not prove the literal truth of every fact which he has stated. It is enough if he proves the substantial truth of every material fact. Though the onus is on the defendant, the said onus is discharged if a preponderance of probability is established by the evidence led by him. ( 19 ) IN order to establish good faith it has to be shown that the publication had been honestly made in the belief of its truth and also upon reasonable grounds for such a belief, after the exercise of such means to verify its truth, as would be taken by a man of ordinary prudence, under like circumstances. The plea of good faith implies the making of a genuine effort to reach the truth, and a mere belief in the truth, without there being reasonable grounds for such a plea, is not synonymous with good faith. ( 20 ) IN the case of publication of a defamatory matter actual source of information on which the defendant has acted and the justifiability of his so acting ought to be considered. If he has not taken proper care and acted on a gossip and the plaintiff is thereby defamed he ought not to escape consequences. It is no defence in the matter of defamation for the defendant to say that he has acted on the information given to him by another without verification of the source from which he got the information. Therefore, if the defendant has not exhibited due care and caution and has not made proper verification of the source of information and has not made any attempt to find out the truth or otherwise of the information which is published prior to publication the plea of justification, good faith, want of malice would not come to his rescue and he has to answer the claim for damages. ( 21 ) IN this background if one were to see the publication published by the second defendant as per Exhibit P1, the imputations in the said publication are as under :- (A) The plaintiff for his personal use got manufactured four steel racks in the workshop of his school during March and July 1989 with only steel purchased by him and the labour, electricity and other apparatus and the total expenses incurred for manufacturing one rack is Rs. 88. 00. (b) A tricycle was manufactured in the month of July 1989 for his daughter entirely at the cost of the Government and the said cost of manufacture is Rs. 531. 00. (c) The plaintiff has taken home a teak wood stool belonging to the institution which is worth Rs. 180. 00 by paying a sum of Rs. 7. 00 and by issuing a fabricated receipt for the same. Further it has been stated the plaintiff is involved in many other illegal activities along with his colleagues and if action is not taken to prevent such illegal activities immediately, the school which has good reputation and the name would be destroyed in the hands of these looters. ( 22 ) IT is not in dispute that the aforesaid imputations are defamatory in nature. The said statements injure the petitioner's reputation. It exposes the plaintiff to contempt, hatred, ridicule and tends to injure him in his profession and causes him to be shunned or avoided by his colleagues, students and superiors. Once the plaintiff demonstrates that the aforesaid publication and the imputations published are defamatory in nature the burden of justifying the said imputations shifts to the second defendant who has made the said imputations. In view of the specific defence taken by the second defendant at paragraph 11 read with paragraph 33, the defendant is claiming that his case falls under first exception to section 499 of the Indian Penal Code thereby admitting that the imputations which he has published are per se defamatory. Being fully conscious of the law on the point the defendant has set up the plea of truth of the words published by him as a defence which is available to him in a civil action. Therefore, the question is whether defendant has succeeded in establishing his plea of justification. Being fully conscious of the law on the point the defendant has set up the plea of truth of the words published by him as a defence which is available to him in a civil action. Therefore, the question is whether defendant has succeeded in establishing his plea of justification. Further, though a specific plea is not taken in the written statement that his case also falls under Exception 9 namely imputation is made in good faith, the oral evidence tends to indicate that the defendant is relying on the 9th Exception as a defence also. ( 23 ) IN order to appreciate his defence, a look at his oral evidence is necessary. He has categorically admitted in his oral evidence that he has published Ex. P1 the newspaper containing the imputations. The said publication is based on the report of defendant No. 1 e. G. Angadi. He states he made investigation with the persons who were addressed in the copies. The addressee stated that he did not receive the copy and investigation was going on and he felt that it is true and therefore he published it. He has produced a letter written by S. M. Hiremath to the Director of Technical Education which is marked as Ex. D2. Ha has produced a cyclostyle copy in respect of assembly question as Ex. D3, he has also produced a letter dated 2. 2. 1990 addressed by Annigeri to the Director of Technical Education as Ex. D4. In cross-exam -nation he states that personally E. G. Angadi had handed over the manuscript to his worker by name Sridhar. He has not personally met defendant No. 1-E. G. Angadi. He has made enquiries as to the truthfulness of the report, He verified in Hubli as to the truthfulness of the report. He had discussion with one Suttar at Bangalore. Suttar is a lecturer in JTS, Hublfi. He cannot give the exact date of meeting. He met him at Board of Techntcal Education. Suttar had come for personal work. He knew Suttar eartier. We spoke to him also. He enquired the correctness of the report of defendant no. 1 but he did not show the fetter to Suttar. He only made enquiries. He made further enquiry and he felt that the report is correct. He collected the information. Suttar had come for personal work. He knew Suttar eartier. We spoke to him also. He enquired the correctness of the report of defendant no. 1 but he did not show the fetter to Suttar. He only made enquiries. He made further enquiry and he felt that the report is correct. He collected the information. However, the says that he did not make any enquiries as to who is E. G. Angadi. He also states he had never seen E. G. Angadi and hid address is E. G. Angadi, Vidyanagar, hubli-21. He never made any enquiries as tothe existence of'e;g. Angadi. He has not made any attempt to find out the correctness of the address of the Said E. G. Angadi. He has only visilted Hubli about 15 times. He has tried to trace the address of the defendant No. 1 but did not find the address nor the said "person, Further to admits that it is true that there was Court order that no matter in respect of plaintiff be published. He further states that he was restrained from publishing defamatory matter against the plaintiff. After the prohibitory order of the Court he has published a matter pertalning to the plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that he has published the Matter to defame the plaintiff, He denies having violated the ,order of me Court He has no personal knowledge of the plaintiff's background. Suttar has not given anything in writing against the plaintiff. 'he had 'written an editorial after filing of the present case in his paper regarding the functioning of the Additional Civil Judge Court in Hubli and the same is marked as Ex. P11. ( 24 ) FROM the aforesaid oral evidence it becomes clear excepth is assertion that he has made enquiries, no material is placed by him on record to show the nature of enquiry made, the persons with whom he had made enquiry and the information which he got on such enquiry. His evidence discloses he had enquired with one Suttar, a lecturer in JTS, Hubii, and he does hot say what the said Suttar told him about the imputations and the said Suttar is also not examined. Therefore, it is clear the Material on record discloses that before publishing the imputations the defendant has not made any due enquiry to find out the truth of otherwise of the said imputations. Therefore, it is clear the Material on record discloses that before publishing the imputations the defendant has not made any due enquiry to find out the truth of otherwise of the said imputations. In fact the evidence discloses he has not met the first defendant who gave him the letter which contains the aforesaid imputations. Though it is stated that the said letter was handed over to his, employee by name one Sridhar, the said Sridhar has not been examined in this case. Let alone finding out the truthfulness of the statement, he has not made any attempt to lind out the whereabouts of the first defendant though he admits that he has visited Hubli 15 times and when he made an attempt to locate the first defendant he could neither locate the person or the address given by the said person. When he couid not find out whether the person who gave the information is a real person or a fictitious person, without properly ascertaining the source of information and without due care and proper verification he has published the imputation against the plaintiff. He categorically admits in his evidence he has not made enquiries about the truthfulness of the report and he did not show the letter to Suttar and only when he felt the report is correct he has published the same. Absolutely no material is placed on record to substantiate the truthfulness of the imputations made in Ex. P1. On the contrary an attempt is made to justify his action by producing documentary evidence Exs. D1 to D9. ( 25 ) EX. D1 is an order dated 27. 6. 1991 issued by the Secretary of the Technical Education Board to the plaintiff regarding the recommendation made by the plaintiff to help a student in the practical examination of 1987. The said order states that by making such recommendation he has committed a grievous error and therefore he has been warned not to indulge jn such acts. From this the defendant wants to contend as far as back as in the year 1987 itself i. e. nearly two years prior to the date of the offending publication he has been indulging in gross irregularities and therefore he has no reputation. This document is sought to be pressed into service to justify the plea of truthfulness, of the imputations made, in the publication. This document is sought to be pressed into service to justify the plea of truthfulness, of the imputations made, in the publication. Firstly, the said argument cannot be accepted because the irregularity pointed out in the said Ex. D1 has no connection with the imputations which are made against the plaintiff, As is clear from the documents itself the said irregularity was committed nearly about two years earlier to the said publication. It is not the case of the defendant that he had this information when he published Ex. P1. This is a document which has come to his possession; in fact after the filing of the suit as the date of the document is 27. 6. 1991 That apart the document categorically states that the petitioner has a blemishless record and he is honest. Taking into consideration these two aspects the authorities have ignored the illegal act committed in the year 1987 and were content by warning the plaintiff not to indulge in such action in future. Therefore, this document clearly establishes the reputation of the petitioner in his profession and in his placed work as being honest and blemishlessness. Therefore, in my opinion ex. D1 is of no assistance to the second defendant to justify his plea of turthfulness 6f the imputations made in the publicatidh. ( 26 ) EXHIBIT D2 Is a letter dated 17. 1. 1990 written by S. M. Hiremath to the Director of Technical Education making certain allegations against several persons including the plaintiff in this case. A perusal of the said letter discloses that there is no reference in the said letter to the imputations published in Exp1. The said letter has come into existence subsequent to the filing of the suit, Moreover the author of the said document Is not examined in the case. Therefore, the said document is not proved In accordance with law before any reliance could be placed on the contents of the said document as evidence of the justification of the plea of truthfulness set up by the second defendant. Even otherwise it is hot the case of the second defendant that before publishing these Imputations he had this material before him and during any enquiry conducted by him to verify the truthfulness of the imputations. Therefore, Ex. Even otherwise it is hot the case of the second defendant that before publishing these Imputations he had this material before him and during any enquiry conducted by him to verify the truthfulness of the imputations. Therefore, Ex. p2 is of no assistance to the second Defendant In justification of his plea of truthfulness or as the evidence ofany due inquiry being made before publication of the imputations. ( 27 ) EXHIBIT D3 is a reply to the unstated question by Sri Basavaraj Horatti M. L. C in the legislative Council. This question appears to have put somewhere in the year 1990 subsequent to filing of the suit. It only discloses that allegations have been made against the plaintiff for harassing his employees for which the concerned Minister appears to have said that they have received allegations against the plaintiff. The second question is regarding enquiry into the irregularities committed by the Principal. Reply was, the matter is still under investigation by Director of Technical Education and after receipt of the investigation report further necessary action will be taken. What is the irregularity alleged against the plaintiff is not clear from the said question or the answer. As the answer discloses they are awaiting the investigation report and till today it has not been brought on record what is the result of the safd Investigation report, this document is also of no assistance to the second defendant to substantiate the plea of justification of truthfulness as firstly this document was not in existence before publication of the imputation and the said document does not discloses that it has any connection with the imputation which is published. ( 28 ) EX. D4 is another letter written by one C. K. Annigerimath to the Director of Technical Education regarding the allegation against the plaintiff. A perusal of the said letter discloses that the allegations do not pertain to the imputations which is published in Ex. P1. Secondly, the letter is dated 2. 2. 1990 i. e. subsequent to the filing of the suit. Therefore, it is clear that even this letter was not in the hands of the second defendant before publishing Ex. P1. Moreover the said C. K. Annigerimath has not been examined to prove the said document. As such the said document was not proved. 2. 1990 i. e. subsequent to the filing of the suit. Therefore, it is clear that even this letter was not in the hands of the second defendant before publishing Ex. P1. Moreover the said C. K. Annigerimath has not been examined to prove the said document. As such the said document was not proved. Therefore, this document is also of no assistance to the second defendant in establishing his case. ( 29 ) EX. DS is a police complaint. Ex. D6 is a copy of the FIR, Ex. D7 is a copy of the inquest panchanama and Ex. P8 post mortem report, all of which discloses one Veeran Patel a student who was caught copying in an examination subsequently committed suicide on 30. 11. 1993 nearly three years after the filing of the suit. An attempt is made to rely on the said documents by saying that the said boy committed suicide due to the harassment meted out by the Principal- exs. D5 to D3 do not whisper a word supporting the said allegation. A perusal of the aforesaid document discloses that the said student was caught copying in the examination and it is in that connection he has committed suicide. An attempt is made to connect his suicide to the plaintiff as a justification for publication of the defamatory statements. At any rate the said event has happened three years after the filing of the suit. Therefore, these documents could not by any stretch of imagination could be considered as a material which was available with the second defendant to find out the truth of toe allegations in Ex. P1. ( 30 ) EX. D9 is a report filed by one of his reporters. The said report gives an indication that the death of the said boy is on account of the treatment meted out to him by the plaintiff. The said reporter has been examined as DW2. The said report has been prepared and submitted to the second defendant during the pendency of these proceedings. It is a post titem document. The author of the said document is hone other than the reporter who is constantly In association with the second defendant and as his evidence discloses that his report is based on collection of information and not on police report and he has been paid for the expenses and remuneration for his visit. It is a post titem document. The author of the said document is hone other than the reporter who is constantly In association with the second defendant and as his evidence discloses that his report is based on collection of information and not on police report and he has been paid for the expenses and remuneration for his visit. Therefore, no much credence could be given to the said report. Therefore, it is clear from the aforesaid documentary evidence all of which have come into existence subsequent to the filing of the suit were not in possession of the second defendant to find out the truthfulness or otherwise of the imputations which he has published in Ex. P1. Therefore, from the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence it is ctear the second defendant has published the letter alleged to have been written by the first defendant without due care, proper verification and without ascertaining the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the said letter. Therefore, the second defendant has failed to prove the truth of defamatory words/as such he has failed to establish that his case comes within the Exception (1) of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 31 ) COMING to the question of good faith as contained in Exception 9 to Section 499, the said question has to be considered on facts and circumstances of each case. Having regard to the nature of imputation made against the plaintiff who is the Principal of a recognized Government Institution, before contending that the said imputation was published in good faith and puttie good the second defendant has to establish the good faith. If the second defendant did not make any enquiry and exhibit due care and attention before publishing the said Imputations, It cannot be said that the said publication has been made In good faith or in public good. Absolutely without any basis, without even trying to find out whether the author of the letter which was published existed or not, without verifying his whereabouts, without even making an attempt to find the said person, the second defendant has proceeded to publish the said letter as per Ex. P1. The second defendant has exhibited negligence and callousness in publishing the aforesaid imputations. In fact the subsequent conduct even after legal notice clearly demonstrates that he has no regard for truth. P1. The second defendant has exhibited negligence and callousness in publishing the aforesaid imputations. In fact the subsequent conduct even after legal notice clearly demonstrates that he has no regard for truth. Though an order of injunction was passed he proceeds to publish articles concerning the plaintiff in continuation of Ex. P1 and wants to justify his action on the ground that he is prohibited only from publishing defamatory statement and he was at liberty to publish statements against the plaintiff, which according to him are not defamatory. This conduct of the second defendant clearly demonstrates that it is not a case of want of malice. Though the plaintiff did not establish malice against the defendant who has published the offending statement this conduct of the defendant in persistently publishing articles concerning plaintiff in continuation of the offending publication clearly shows that he has some HI motive in publishing the imputations against the plaintiff. In that background the plea of good faith gets destroyed. In fact he has gone to the extent of making comments on the Civil Court where the present suit was pending in one of its publication. Therefore, it appears to me that the second defendant who is the editor, publisher and printer seems to think his freedom of expression is unlimited and in exercise of that fundamental right he need not have any concern to others and he seems to think that fundamental rights includes a right to defame others. Therefore, his conduct subsequent to the fifing of the suit clearly establishes the malice and want of due care which is expected of a publisher and a printer. Therefore, I am of the view that the second defendant has miserably failed to establish the truthfulness of the defamatory statements published In Ex. P1 and he has miserably failed to make out a case within Exceptions 1 and 9 of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 32 ) RE. Point No. 3:- Learned Counsel for the respondent sub-mitted that the plaintiff's conduct of giving up his claim against the first defendant is fatal to the suit. It Is to be remembered plaintiff has stated that the first defendant is a total stranger to him. He came to know about the existence of the first defendant only through the publication pf Ex. P1 which purports to publish a letter written by the first defendant. It Is to be remembered plaintiff has stated that the first defendant is a total stranger to him. He came to know about the existence of the first defendant only through the publication pf Ex. P1 which purports to publish a letter written by the first defendant. It is on the information given in Ex. P1 he got a legal notice issued both to defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2. The notice sent to defendant No. 1 returned with a share no such person. Similar is the fate when suit summons were taken. Coupled with this the second defendant in his evidence has categorically stated that he has not seen the first defendant The person who has seen the first defendant namely his employee Sridhar has not been examined. Further in his cross-examination he categorically admits that he tried to trace the address of defendant No. 1 and he did not find the said address nor the said person. Therefore, from the material on record it. is doubtful whether the person by name first defendant existed at all. If that be the case no fault could be found with the plaintiff giving up his claim against a nonexistent person more so because the damage done to the reputation of the plaintiff is by publication of a letter written by the first defendant in the second defendant's fortnightly. Therefore, his name is defamed only when the said letter was published. Under these circumstances, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the defendant that giving up the claim against the first defendant is fatal to the case of the plaintiff. ( 33 ) RE Point No. 4:- Now the next question for cpnsideration is once it is held that the defendant has defamed the plaintiff by offending publication the question would be what is the damages to, which he is entitled to. In this connection it is useful to refer to the passage in the Law of Torts by Ramaswamy Iyer at page 259. Dealing with damages to be awarded in case of defamation, damages are awarded in one lump sum but fall under two different heads: (a) general damages by way of pecuniary reparation or solatium to the plaintiff for the annoyance, mental pain, inconvenience, etc. Dealing with damages to be awarded in case of defamation, damages are awarded in one lump sum but fall under two different heads: (a) general damages by way of pecuniary reparation or solatium to the plaintiff for the annoyance, mental pain, inconvenience, etc. , (b) compensation for the special damage that he has sustained as a direct consequence of the publication. ( 34 ) FROM the evidence on record it is clear that the plaintiff has not suffered any special damages. Therefore, the only damage to which the plaintiff is entitled would be the general damages. Now it is on record and as is clear from Ex. D1 the plaintiff has a blemishless record and known as a honest person at the place,of his work. He is holding a high and respectable post as a Principal of a College, the material on record discloses apart from his academic duties his services are utilised for conducting public examinations. Apart from his evidence stating that because of this imputations he has suffered mental agony and that students and colleagues ana others started to see him with suspicion, his reputation was harmed, he, has examined three witnesses in support of the damage to the reputation which he has sustained. PW2 who is a clerk working in the Postal department has given evidence stating that he was- under the impression that the plaintiff is a person with good character and he had good regard for him and after reading Ex. P1 he started suspecting the bonafides of PW1. PW3 is an employee of the polytechnic for Women at Hubii who also speaks about the reputation of PW1 as an efficient worker and a disciplinarian and is sincere and honest person who was inclined to change his opinion after reading Ex. PL PW4, a business man, is another witness who says he knew the plaintiff for the last 20 to 30 years as both of them belong to the same native place and after going through the contents of Ex. P1 he felt bad about the plaintiff. That apart as the evidence of the defendant itself discloses after the publication of this imputations the questions were put in the legislative Council which has certainly hampered the interest of the petitioner. The evidence of plaintiff also discloses because of these imputations he,. was transferred from the said post. P1 he felt bad about the plaintiff. That apart as the evidence of the defendant itself discloses after the publication of this imputations the questions were put in the legislative Council which has certainly hampered the interest of the petitioner. The evidence of plaintiff also discloses because of these imputations he,. was transferred from the said post. Therefore, it is clear the imputations published in Ex. P1 has injured the reputation of the plaintiff which has cause mental agony, humiliation and he has gone down in the eye of the student community and his colleagues. ( 35 ) THESE imputations are made by a person who has no standing in life. It is published in a fortnightly paper which has hardly a circulation of 2500, out of which 600 are complimentary copies. As the publication itself discloses it confines to matter of technical and engineering field therefore the area of circulation is very much limited. Further, it cannot be lost sight of that there were aggravating circumstances in the instant case such as gross recklessness and repetition of the imputations in various forms which clearly establishes malice also on the part of the second defendant in making these imputations. Though no hard and fast rule could be had in assessing the damages of this nature, I am of the opinion having regard to the status of the plaintiff, status of the second defendant, the nature of imputations published, having regard to the circulation of the fortnightly which has published the offending imputations and the categories of readers of the said news paper and the injury which was suffered by the plaintiff as made out from the material on record, justice would be met by awarding a damages of Rs. 25,000. 00 as general damages. ( 36 ) RE Point No. 5:- Now coming to the question of grant of an injunction preventing recurrence of said misconduct in future, the learned trial Judge is of the view that the publication itself is the fundamental right against which the injunction cannot be granted and if the said publishers crosses the limits they are only liable for damages and criminal action and question of granting an injunction would not arise as it would offend the freedom of press. In this regard it is useful to refer to a judgment of this Court in the case of a. K. SUBBAIAH vs B. N. GARUDACHAR. In this regard it is useful to refer to a judgment of this Court in the case of a. K. SUBBAIAH vs B. N. GARUDACHAR. Dealing with a similar question this Court had to say this:-" (B) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 19 (2) - Freedom of speech and Expression not unfettered to allow defamatory statements injuring reputation based on anticipatory plea of turth and justification. So long as the speech made by a person is not defamatory and does not amount to an incitement to commit an offence and so long as it does not violate the limits of decency or morality, one would be justified in claiming freedom of speech and expression. When once the speech or statement made by a person amounts to violation of decency or morality or becomes defamatory etc. , his right to freedom of speech and expression would be naturally controlled by corresponding duty he owes to another. Therefore Article 19 (2) puts a reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression. Nobody has got a right to make a defamatory statement regarding another merely on the ground that the law provides truth or justification as a defence. The plea of justification would come into picture only after speech is made but not before. The reputation is most valuable to any person. It is much more valuable than any amount of money or anything else in the world. Therefore merely because defendant wants to plead truth or justification, it does not mean that he has got an unfettered right to freedom of speech and expression. " ( 37 ) THEREFORE, it is clear if a publication made fey a person amounts to violation of decency or morality or if there is defamation, etc. , his right to freedom of speech and expression would be naturally controlled by corresponding duty he owes to another and therefore a temporary injunction restraining such person from making such publications could be granted. Having regard to the undisputed facts in this case, that even after the filing of the suit and passing an interim order of injunction restraining him from publishing defamatory statements against the plaintiff he seems to think he is at liberty to publish statements concerning plaintiff on the ground that what he is publishing is not defamatory and he is prevented from publishing only defamatory statements. In other words he wants to sit in judgment over his publications and wants to declare that the publications subsequent to the suit are not defamatory in nature. Further more his evidence discloses that there were cases against him in respect of publications. There are two cases before the metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. Of Course he denies a suggestion that there are 80 cases pending against him before Metropolitan magistrate, Bangalore. He admits that cases are pending before 8th metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore and there is one case pending before 11th Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. He further admits that one M. Krishnamurthy has lodged a private complaint under section 500 IPC. He denies the suggestion that there are in all 11 cases pending against him. This evidence of his makes it clear the publication which is the subject matter of the suit is not an isolated publication. He has been in the habit of publishing defamatory statements in his paper and in that regard several persons who are affected have already approached the Courts and cases are pending against him. Thus, it is clear that he is a habitual publisher of defamatory statements. Coupled with this his conduct of publishing statements in his paper about the plaintiff in spite of an interim order restraining him from such publication makes it clear that the grievance of the plaintiff that unless he is prevented from a decree of permanent injunction he would indulge in further publications against the plaintiff is well founded. The reputation is a most valuable asset of any person. It is much more valuable than any amount of money. When these publication do have the tendency to destroy such a reputation the injury complained of by the plaintiff would be irreparable. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff has made out a case for granting permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed for. ( 38 ) THE trial Court has altogether proceeded ignoring the well settled principles governing the action for damages on account of defamation. The trial Court seems to think the plaintiff has to first establish the falsity of the publication made and only on such proof the burden shifts on the defendant. Secondly, the Court below has taken into consideration Exs. The trial Court seems to think the plaintiff has to first establish the falsity of the publication made and only on such proof the burden shifts on the defendant. Secondly, the Court below has taken into consideration Exs. D2 to D9 which are all documents which came into existence during the pendency of the proceedings which are in the nature of post litem documents, most of which are not proved in accordance with law and has recorded erroneous findings. Therefore, the findings of the Court below cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. ( 39 ) APPEAL is partly allowed with costs throug hout. (A) The plaintiff's suit is decreed for damages in a sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 with interest at 6% p. a. from the date of suit till the date of payment. (b) The defendant or his men are restrained from writing, printing, editing, publishing and circulating any kind of defamatory articles against the plaintiff in Tantrika Jwala fortnightly. --- *** --- .

J. SUDHIR CHANDRASHEKHAR v. T. LOKAPRAKASH