Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 150 (JK)

Vivek Sharma v. Early Times

2006-06-02

Y.P.NARGOTRA

body2006
The petitioner is an accredited Journalist with Directorate of Information J&K. He happened to come across an editorial in Early Times Newspaper of its issue dated 17th of July 2005 containing the following statement:-- "There is no dearth of newspapers in the State and journalists are available dime a dozen. So how do we differ vis-a-vis our new "Avtaar." The respondent is claimed to be author of the editorial. Feeling deeply pained and injured the petitioner filed a criminal complaint against the respondent, alleging the statement to be defamatory seeking his trial for commission of the offences under Sections 500,501 and 502 RPC. Learned Special Excise Mobile Magistrate has without issuing process to the accused dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C by his order-dated 15.9.2005.Hence the complainant has filed this petition for invoking revisional jurisdiction. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The contention of Mr. Sakal Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the above quoted statement is defamatory in regard to the whole of the journalistic community, therefore, against the respondent process should have been issued for commission of the offence under Section 500 RPC which is defined in Section 499 RPC. Section 499 RPC reads:-- "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. Explanation 1. It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person, if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2. It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3. An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4. Explanation 2. It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3. An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4. No imputation is said to harm a persons reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. " From the bare reading of Section 499, it is manifest that for attracting the Section two ingredients must be satisfied which are, one that the imputation made by the accused is defamatory in character and two, that such imputation relates to the complainant directly or if it is not direct then such person falls in any category of the persons referred to in Explanation 2. In the present case in the alleged statement the expression "dime a dozen" accordingly to complainant is defamatory. The imputation does not relate to the complainant directly but to the journalist class of people, therefore, according to the complainant he being a journalist is covered by the said statement and therefore, Section is attracted. Learned Trial Court has held the expression to be not defamatory. It also held that petitioner/complainant is not covered by Explanation 2 being not of the determinate or identifiable section of journalists community and, therefore, can not maintain the complaint. In order to see whether the alleged offending expression is defamatory, its meaning is required to be understood. The said expression is an adjective of English language therefore, it can be better understood by reference to a standard Dictionary. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary in its edition of 1993 defines the same as follows:-- "2a.Dime a dozen. Commonplace." The expression thus can mean commonplace. The word commonplace is described in the same dictionary to mean:- "Commonplace. A passage of general application, a leading text. A notable passage or quotation entered in a book for future use. A commonplace-book. An ordinary topic, an opinion or statement generally accepted, a platitude. A thesis or discourse on a set theme. Commonplace." The expression thus can mean commonplace. The word commonplace is described in the same dictionary to mean:- "Commonplace. A passage of general application, a leading text. A notable passage or quotation entered in a book for future use. A commonplace-book. An ordinary topic, an opinion or statement generally accepted, a platitude. A thesis or discourse on a set theme. Anything usual or trite, ordinary or trite matter. Ordinariness, lack of distinction, the commonplace, that which is ordinary and without novelty." With the above meaning in view when the alleged editorial of the accused is read, it appears to be conveying that the other journalists are ordinary and without novelty whereas the accused would be a better one for espousing the public cause. Such a statement cannot in my opinion per se be defamatory in character for the journalist community including the complainant. Assuming for the sake of argument the offending statement is per se defamatory then the question would arise whether it refers to such a class of people, which is contemplated by Explanation 2 of Section 499. In Sahib Singh Mehra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 S.C 1451, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in regard to the expression collection of persons used in Expln.2 of Section 499 observed:-- "The next question to determine is whether it is essential for the purpose of an offence under S. 500 I.P.C, that the person defamed must be an individual and that the prosecuting staff at Aligarh or of the State of Uttar Pradesh could not be said to be a person which could be defamed. Section 499 I.P.C, defines defamation and provides inter alia that whoever makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such person, I said, except in cases covered by the exceptions to the Section, to defame that person, Explanation 2 provides that it may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. It is clear therefore, that there could be defamation of an individual person and also of a collection of persons as such. It is clear therefore, that there could be defamation of an individual person and also of a collection of persons as such. The contention for the appellant then reduces itself to the question whether the prosecuting staff at Aligarh can be considered to be such a collection of persons as is contemplated by Explanation 2.The language of Explanation 2 is general and any collection of persons would be covered by it. Of course, that collection of persons must be identifiable in the sense that one could, with certainty say that this group of particular people has been defamed, as distinguished from the rest of the community. The prosecuting staff of Aligarh or, a matter of fact, the prosecuting staff in the State of Uttar Pradesh, is certainly such an identifiable group or collection of persons. There is nothing indefinite about it. This group consists of all members of the prosecuting staff in the service of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. Within this general group of Public prosecutors of U.P. there is again an identifiable group of prosecuting staff, consisting of Public prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors, at Aligarh. This group of persons would be covered by Explanation 2 and could, therefore, be the subject of defamation." Thus only that collection of persons which is identifiable in the sense that one can with certainty say that this group of particular people has been defamed as distinguished from the rest of the community, can fall within the ambit of Explanation 2. Applying the aforesaid test to the present case it cannot be said that which class of journalists out of the whole journalistic community of the World has been defamed. Therefore, any journalist of any part of the world cannot complain defamation on the basis of the alleged statement of the accused. The contention of Mr. Sakal Bhushan learned counsel for the petitioner is that journalist community being distinguishable from the general public would be a group of particular people within the meaning of Explanation 2 is without any merit. For drawing the distinction of the group of people complaining defamation from the rest of the community only that community to which such group belongs is to be seen. For attracting Section 499 RPC Explanation 2 such group of people must be particularly identifiable out of general class of journalists. For drawing the distinction of the group of people complaining defamation from the rest of the community only that community to which such group belongs is to be seen. For attracting Section 499 RPC Explanation 2 such group of people must be particularly identifiable out of general class of journalists. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to differ with the view of learned Trial Court. The revision petition of the petitioner, therefore, has no merit. Dismissed.