Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1618 (PAT)

Vijaydhari Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2010-07-22

DHARNIDHAR JHA

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard. 2. A supplementary affidavit has been filed bringing on record the part of Hindi Daily "Dainik Jagran", Patna Edition dated 11.6.2000 which is the basis for filing the complaint upon which the petitioner has been summoned for standing trial for committing offences under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of the IPC. 3. The petitioner was writing a letter to different authorities of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation bringing into the notices the prospective acts of indulging in malpractices, etc. in placing orders for fabrication of bodies of buses acquired or to be acquired by the said Corporation. The contract was given to some fabricators as may appear from the newspaper cutting Annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit. While raking up the issue of corruption, the petitioner was making statement that there was every chance of huge bungling of public funds by the officers of the Corporation and that could be detrimental to the interest of the employees of the Corporation. These are the statements which have been taken as constituting offences under which the petitioner has been summoned. 4. One could look to the definition of offence of defamation as defined by Section 499 of the IPC and specially to its 9th exception which reads as under: "Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or others interests.It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good." 5. On perusal of the above, one could find that even if the statement is prima facie defamatory in nature and imputation might be in the form of character assassination as regards the person defamed, if the same is made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it or of any other person or for the public good then it shall never constitute an offence as defined by Section 499 of the IPC which could be punishable under subsequent Sections contained therein. The petitioner was not making any statement to further his own interest. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation is the Corporation created by the State of Bihar for the public good and in the interest of the public out of the taxpayers money. The petitioner was not making any statement to further his own interest. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation is the Corporation created by the State of Bihar for the public good and in the interest of the public out of the taxpayers money. It is well known that its activities are dependent upon the funds allocated out of public money and therefore it may be exposed to defalcation. If the situation so warrants, every citizen, be he an employee of the Corporation, has a right to express his opinion on the state of affairs of the Corporation and if he is sensing some rat then there is no harm if he goes on to make some statements publicly which may, on face of it, appear defamatory. In a society like ours which is fundamentally democratic, everyone, even an employee of the State or of any of its Corporations has a constitutionally guaranteed right to have the freedom of expression. This right appears granted only with a view to creating societal sentinels who could critically examine the policies of the State and its organs or any of its undertakings and then freely express their views so as to disseminating it among fellow citizens for initiating a dialogue about the proper functioning of the State machineries and thereby to enforce transparency and accountability. It may look defamatory at the first blush, but deeper examination in the light of the same being in public good may indicate its real purpose and intent. 6. This is the reason and rationale behind the formulation of the abovenoted exception so that the democratic set up of the society and the functioning of its limbs could be protected. 7. The petitioner was not making any personal imputation against any one. He was simply generalizing his apprehensions and those of his colleagues or supporters on account of holding the office of the Joint General Secretary of the Association of Employees of the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation. The better functioning of the Corporation could ultimately be for the betterment of its employees and, surely, in their interest and finally in the interest of the State as a whole. The better functioning of the Corporation could ultimately be for the betterment of its employees and, surely, in their interest and finally in the interest of the State as a whole. As such, they have quite some interest, as a matter of a right as well, that they keep their eyes upon various aspects of the functioning of the Corporation and bring any mal-practice, may be a prospective one also, into the notices of the general public least to talk of the controlling officers of the Corporation. It appears to this court that the same was done in the public good as also for the good of the employees of the Corporation and the nature of the publication being very general which could hardly be specified as an imputation against any person, the court feels that the very summoning order was not required to be passed in the facts of the case. 8. As a result of the above findings as recorded by me, I find that it is a fit case that the petition be allowed and the whole prosecution initiated by the order dated 1.12.2000 in Complaint Case No. 989(C) of 2000 be quashed. It. is, accordingly, quashed.