Judgment : Criminal Appeal No.1011 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No.1032 of 2005 are filed by A2 and A1, respectively, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.06.2005 in C.C.No.1 of 2003 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Hyderabad. Since the subject matter of both the appeals is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, they would be referred to as they were arrayed in C.C.No.1 of 2003. On the complaint filed under Section 199(2)(4)(B) Cr.P.C., by the Public Prosecutor with the previous sanction of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide G.O.Rt.No.6608, General Admn (SC.X) Department, dated 27.12.2002, the trial Court took cognizance of the matter for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 r/w 35 IPC against the accused. A1 was convicted for the offences under Section 500, 501 and 502 IPC, and A2 was convicted for the offence under Section 500 IPC. The averments in the complaint briefly reads as follows: Sri B. Vijaya Sekhar (A1) is the Editor of the Telugu Weekly Journal named “Maa Bhoomi” and Sri V.R.K. Murthy (A2) is the Special Correspondent of the said weekly. The accused by publishing the news item dated 22.07.2002 in their journal, regarding the conduct of the Sri A. Shiva Shankar, IPS, Inspector General of Police (Intelligence) (hereinafter referred to as “the public servant”) in discharge of public functions/duties have defamed the public servant. A1 is the owner and proprietor of M/s i-Power Media Private Limited, and A2, the Special Correspondent were responsible for printing and publication of the defamatory article published in “Maa Bhoomi”. The complainant submits that Sri A. Sivasankar is an IPS Officer from Andhra Pradesh Cadre and is presently working as Inspector General of Police (Intelligence), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, herein referred to as the “public servant” in this complaint. The public servant assumed office of the above said assignment on 30.06.1997 till the date of filing the complaint. The accused herein defamed the public servant by publishing the news item dated 22.07.2002. The imputations made in the publication casts a reflection on the moral and intellectual character and integrity of the public servant besides making allegations which are highly defamatory, false and baseless. The accused herein defamed the public servant by publishing the news item dated 22.07.2002. The imputations made in the publication casts a reflection on the moral and intellectual character and integrity of the public servant besides making allegations which are highly defamatory, false and baseless. The public servant herein is a post-graduate in Science and was selected and joined the Indian Police Service in the year 1997, and he has held various posts in the A.P. State Government, which include Inspector General for Vigilance and Civil Supplies, Inspector General of Police, A.P. Special Police, Additional Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, and presently working as Inspector General of Police (Intelligence), and he is a recipient of Indian Police Medal for the year 1994 and President’s Police Medal for the year 2001. He is a senior officer with unquestionable integrity, honesty and zeal for public service and various responsible positions held by him proved his dynamism and administrative competence, and therefore, he is a accomplished, distinguished and respected individual not only in the administrative cadre but also in the society. It is further stated that on assumption of the charge of Inspector General of Police (Intelligence) on 30.06.1997, he took all steps in gathering information in order to intimate the Government, Police Department and other Government departments and concerned agencies about the latest developments and emerging situations on social, factional, communal, extremist, anti-national and subversive activities in the State and the resultant ramifications on the maintenance of law and order in the State. While the facts stood thus, the public servant was taken aback when he read the news item published in the “Maa Bhoomi” journal on 22.07.2002 with a caption “Sivasankar py Chitra Vichitra Kathanalu”, which contained baseless and false allegations against him, defaming him and projecting him as corrupt and as a person who indulged in lavish dinners, frivolous pleasures and spent days with cine heroines and that one ex-MP of Congress and a builder was extending cooperation to him, and that his wife had lodged a complaint with the Chief Minister. The impugned news item is extracted hereunder: “LANGUAGE” It is further stated that the allegations levelled against him are highly defamatory, baseless and published and circulated by the accused without proper care and caution, with dishonest and malicious intention, against all norms of fair journalism and published in the most irresponsible and unethical manner with a view to malign his character and reputation, and that the journal has circulation through out the State and that after seeing the said publication, some of his acquaintances started enquiring about the validity of news item and looked down upon him. It is stated that A1 and A2, who are none other than the Editor and Special Correspondent/Reporter of the “Maa Bhoomi” Journal published the said defamatory publication in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy with a malicious and dishonest intention, and that the publication was not made in good faith or public good, and thereby the accused committed the offence punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 r/w 34 IPC and Section 120-B IPC. The trial Court had taken cognizance of the matter under Section 500, 501 and 502 IPC. Before the trial Court, on behalf of the complainant, as many as six witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 6, and marked eight exhibits as Exs.P1 to P5(a); and on behalf of the accused, A2 was examined as DW1 and Ex.D1 was marked. The trial Court, after analysing the evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the charges framed against them, and accordingly convicted A1 for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and all the above sentences shall run concurrently; and convicted A2 for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year. The remand period, if any, undergone by A1 and A2 shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeals are filed by A1 and A2. The remand period, if any, undergone by A1 and A2 shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeals are filed by A1 and A2. Learned counsel appearing for appellant/A1 argued that the Court below ought to have seen that the publication of news item in page Nos.36, 37 and 38 in Ex.P1 was in the supervision of the Editor-in-Chief by name Rajendra, which was printed and published by i-Power Media Private Limited, which belongs to the said Rajendra and the news item published in Ex.P1, and A1 is in no way concerned with the news item, and the Court below ought to have considered the evidence of DW1 that on 22.07.2002, the appellant was not in the city and the appellant had no knowledge of the publication of the news item at Page No.38 of Ex.P1(b), and the Court below ought to have seen that after publication of news item on 22.07.2002, after a lapse of more than five months, a complaint was made by PW1 through the Public Prosecutor by obtaining previous sanction vide G.O.Rt.No.6608, dated 27.12.2002 and till that time no notice was given to the appellant raising any objection about the publication of news item, and as such, the complaint itself is not maintainable. He further argued that the news item published in Ex.P1 is within the Rules and Regulations of the Press Council of India and not beyond that, and as such the appellant has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant/A2 argued that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the impugned publication do not contain any thing, much less defamatory material relating to the conduct in discharge of the public functions by the public servant PW1, and that appellant/A2 has not contributed the impugned article, Ex.P1(B) appearing as a box item on Page No.38 of Ex.P1 and the article contributed by the appellant A2 appearing in Page Nos.36, 37 and 38 (Ex.D1) has no relation to the impugned article, and that A2 has no personal animosity against the defacto complainant and that the conviction of the trial Court is not sustainable. Learned Addl. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor while attacking the said arguments argued that the prosecution is launched by the Public Prosecutor after due sanction by the Government and all the witnesses PWs.1 to 6 have stated that the impugned publication has caused harm to the reputation of public servant and the imputations made in the publication is nothing but character assassination, which reflects on the moral and intellectual character and integrity of the public servant, and the trial Court well discussed the evidence on record and came to a right conclusion in convicting the accused, and urged for the dismissal of the appeals. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution is able to prove the charges framed against A1 for the offence punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 IPC, and against A2 for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC; and whether the impugned judgment dated 13.06.2005 is sustainable. POINT: In order to prove the prosecution story, the defacto complainant got himself examined as PW1 and examined PWs.2 to 6. PW1 is Sri A. Shiva Shankar, IPS, Inspector General of Police, PW2 is Sri A. Mohan Krishna Reddy, Infotech Hyderabad, PW3 is Sri M.V. Dinakar Prasad, IPS, Superintendent of Police Intelligence, PW4 is Sri Ch. Rama Mohan Rao, Section Officer, C.M. Secretariat, Hyderabad, PW5 is Sri Murali Krishna, Steno in Commissioner’s Officer, PW6 is Sri V. Venkanna Babu, Section Officer, GAD, A.P. Secretariat. Before the trial Court, charges under Section 500, 501 and 502 IPC were framed against A1 and charge under Section 500 IPC was framed against A2. The case of prosecution in nutshell is that A1 is the Editor, Publisher and Owner of the Telugu Magazine “Maa Bhoomi” (hereinafter referred to as “the journal”), and A2 is the Special Correspondent of the said journal. An article was published in the said journal’s edition dated 22.07.2002 with the caption “Shiva Shankar pai Chitra Vichitra Kadanalu”. The said article was contributed by A2 and the same was published in the journal of A1. The imputations made in the article against the public servant, are defamatory. Due to the publication of the said article, the reputation and image of the public servant has gone down amongst his friends, relatives in the society. The said article was contributed by A2 and the same was published in the journal of A1. The imputations made in the article against the public servant, are defamatory. Due to the publication of the said article, the reputation and image of the public servant has gone down amongst his friends, relatives in the society. A1 and A2 defamed the public servant by publishing the news item making imputations and the said imputations in the publication casts reflection on the moral and intellectual character, dignity of the public servant, besides making allegations, which are highly defamatory, false and baseless and that the Government of A.P has accorded sanction to prosecute the accused authorising the Public Prosecutor to file the complaint. The plea of the accused is of total denial. Before going into the merits of the case it is just and necessary to extract the provisions of Sections 500, 501 and 502 IPC, which reads as follows: Section 500 IPC: “Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Section 501 IPC: “Whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to believe that such matter is defamatory of any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Section 502 IPC: “Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter.-Whoever sells or offers for sale any printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter, knowing that it contains such matter, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. While keeping in mind the above provisions of Section 500, 501 and 502 as stated supra, the Court has to see whether the allegations made in the impugned publication falls within the provisions of the definition of “defamation”. Under the Indian Penal Code, in order that the offence of defamation may be committed there must be making or publication of any imputation, concerning any person by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person. To constitute the offence of defamation there must, therefore, be making or publication of an imputation concerning any person and the making or publication must be with intent to harm or knowing or having reason to believe, that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person. Section 499 IPC brings under the criminal law, the person who publishes as well as the person who makes the defamatory imputation. Section 499 IPC emphasises the words “makes or publishes”. The gist of the offence of defamation lies in the dissemination of the harmful imputation. When a defamatory statement is published, it is not only the publisher, but also the maker who becomes responsible and it is in that context that the word “makes” is used in Section 499 IPC. It is of essence that in order to constitute the offence of defamation, it must be communicated to a third person because what is intended by the imputation is to arouse hostility of others. Therefore, in brief, the essentials of defamation are, firstly, the words must be defamatory; secondly, they must refer to the aggrieved party; thirdly, they must be maliciously published. In a case of defamation, only the source of information on which the person accused has acted and the justification for his so acting, are to be considered. If he has not taken proper care and acted on gossip against the complainant hereby defamed, he ought not to escape the consequence on the ground that he has contracted the incorrect report. The culpability in such cases does not depend upon the circumstances where he has tried to undo the wrong which he has committed or not put up on fact where he has acted with care or attention or has done so rashly or negligently, 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 is a proper source on which he entitled and he did with care and circumspection. Therefore, the editor and publisher are liable for the baseless and false matter which was published in the journal. Such an irresponsible conduct and attitude on the part of the editor and publisher cannot be said to be done in good faith. Therefore, the editor and publisher are liable for the baseless and false matter which was published in the journal. Such an irresponsible conduct and attitude on the part of the editor and publisher cannot be said to be done in good faith. Now let us see to what extent the defacto complainant made out his case for the offence leveled against the accused herein. PW1 is the public servant against whom the imputations were made by A1 and A2 by publishing the news item in “Maa Bhoomi” weekly edition dated 22.07.2002. PW1 deposed that presently he is working as Inspector General of Intelligence, since 13.06.1997. He served as Assistant Superintendent of Police, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam, and also worked as Superintendent of Police in some other districts and got promotion as DIG and worked as Additional Commissioner of Police and Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) Hyderabad and joined as Director of Police Acadmy, Additional Director, ACB, DIG (Coordination) and DIG (SIB) and on promotion as IG he worked as IG (Civil Supplies) and IG (AP Special Police) and then as IG (Intelligence). According to him, as IG Intelligence, his functions includes gathering of information about social, political and economic activities, factional and communal and extremist activities. He was also Chief Vigilance Office for Police Departments and was awarded Indian Police Medal in the year 2002 besides letters of appreciation from central agencies. It is his further evidence that he knew about the Weekly magazine “Maa Bhoomi” and that it is published by i-Power Media Private Limited, and the accused A1 is the Editor, Publisher and Owner of the magazine, and A2 is the reporter of the impugned article dated 22.07.2002, Ex.P1 is the magazine “Maa Bhoomi” issue dated 22.07.2012. The details of printer and publisher are contained in page 38 of Ex.P1. According to PW1, he has gone through the impugned article issued in Ex.P1 with the caption in Telugu which reads “Shiva Shankar pai Chitra Vichitra Kadanalu”. The details of printer and publisher are contained in page 38 of Ex.P1. According to PW1, he has gone through the impugned article issued in Ex.P1 with the caption in Telugu which reads “Shiva Shankar pai Chitra Vichitra Kadanalu”. In the said article, several defamatory allegations were made that he had been working for six years as IG Intelligence and that he has been spending time in guest houses and enjoying in the company of cine heroines and that one former Congress MP and builder has been helping him in that regard and that his wife made a complaint to the Chief Minister against him and that he assisted Chief Minister in selection of candidates for elections and that he was advising the Chief Minister in cabinet formation, and that he made a list of 100 MLAs of TDP and 55 MLAs of Congress who would not be re-elected and that he was insulting the elected representatives and ministers with arrogant behaviour and that his family members were also complaining over his behaviour and that he was losing his prestige and respect and that other officers were expressing that there will not be any smoke without fire. PW1 further deposed that all the allegations made in Ex.P1 were totally false and baseless, and that the impugned publication was made with a dishonest and malicious intention, and that he was totally shocked on seeing the publication and that it took him some time to regain his normal life, and even now he and his family members were suffering mental agony and that his friends and colleagues including Zannath Hussain, Prl. Secretary to Govt., M. Samuel Principal Secretary to Govt., Mohan Krishna Reddy of Infotech, Prasad Rao, Commissioner of Police, Purnachander Rao, DIG, Dinakar Prasad, S.P., D. Somasekhar Reddy, Chief Controller of Forest, enquired with him the truth or otherwise of the publication Ex.P1B, and his friends and colleagues were upset on the said publication and that the impugned publication caused harm to the reputation which he has built over a long period of his distinguished career and the allegations in the impugned publication will affect his future career, and that both the accused with their knowledge and consent made that impugned publication without any verification of facts before such publication, and that the publication Ex.P1B is neither in good faith nor in public interest. PW1 further deposed that on his request, the Government was pleased to accord permission for prosecution of the accused and marked Ex.P2 the copy of the letter addressed to the Government and Ex.P3 the Government G.O. Rt.No.6608 GAD dt. 27.12.2002 authorising the Public Prosecutor to file the complaint. He further deposed that he also addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Police seeking details of the printer and publisher of the said magazine and the Commissioner of Police replied vide Ex.P4 enclosing the details in the form of declaration Ex.P5. PW2, Sri A. Mohan Krishna Reddy, working as Chief Financial Officer, Infotech Enterprises Limited, deposed that he knew PW1 since 1988 onwards and that PW1 is well placed and well regarded in society and also amongst his friends and family, and that PW1 is a recipient of awards and medals for his meritorious service in the Police Department. Some of his friends brought to his notice about the impugned publication made against PW1 in “Maa Bhoomi” magazine, and since he knew PW1 very well, and having gone through the news item, he was shocked and immediately contacted PW1 through phone and expressed his concern, and that the said publication adversely reflects on the character and conduct of PW1 being a public servant, though he is not such a person as depicted in the said publication, and the contents of the publication are false. PW3 is Sri M.V. Dinakar Prasad, DIG of Police, Intelligence. PW3 is Sri M.V. Dinakar Prasad, DIG of Police, Intelligence. He deposed that he knew PW1 since 1981, and he worked along with him in Visakhapatnam, AP Police Academy and also in Intelligence Department, and that PW1 has a highly reputed place in general public and also in Police Department, and that one of his colleagues working in Vijayawada informed him about the publication in “Maa Bhoomi” dated 22.07.2002 and he immediately secured a copy of the magazine and perused the impugned publication, and was shocked to see about 10 to 20 imputations against PW1 which lower the moral and intellectual character of PW1, being a public servant, among his colleagues, and also in the general public, and none of the allegations made against PW1 are true, and the same were made with a malafide intention, and on seeing the impugned publication, he went to PW1 and asked him whether his wife has gone to the Chief Minister to complain against him as published in the magazine, and because of the said publication, several people asked him personally and through phone about the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the publication. PWs.4 to 6 are formal witnesses. On behalf of the defence, DW1-Sri V.R.K. Murthy (A2) was examined. He deposed that he worked as Correspondent in “Maa Bhoomi” magazine from 2001 till June 2003 and the said magazine was closed in June 2003. He wrote an article in the magazine on 22.07.2002 with a caption in Telugu which reads “Mantrulu Cibbandi Sampadana Teere Veraiah”, at page 36, 37 and 38, and the news item Ex.P1B at page 38 was not written by him, and the said box item in Ex.P1B has nothing to do with the article written by him as in Ex.D1, and that he is not aware of the author of the impugned publication. He further deposed that the Editorial Head of the magazine during that period was one Chief Editor Rajendra who decides the publications, and during that period, the Editor Sri B. Vijay Sekhar-A1 was not attending to his duties, and the Chief Editor used to look after the printing and other things and that he has no idea where the said magazine was being printed at that time. In the cross examination, he deposed that he has not filed any document to show that Rajender is the Chief Editor of the said magazine at that time, and that he has not filed any document to show that the articles subscribed as in Ex.D1 is an authenticated one, and that he has not filed any document to show that on the date of publication of Ex.P1B, the accused No.1 was not attending to his duties and Rajender was in charge of A1 on that day, and that Ex.P1B does not contain that the said article is in continuation of some other article published from another page in Ex.P1, and as per Ex.P1A, A1 is the editor of Maa Bhoomi news magazine, and as per Ex.P5 declaration, A1 is the printer, publisher and editor of the news magazine, and that he does not know who reported the matter Ex.P1B. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that A1 did not choose to enter witness box to depose that he was not attending to duties at that time and one Rajender was the Chief Editor on 22.07.2002. Even otherwise, Ex.P1A would disclose that the editor is Sri B.Vijay Sekhar who is none other than A1. Even as per the declaration Ex.P5, A1 is the proprietor, publisher, printer and editor of the news magazine “Maa Bhoomi”. Even as per Ex.P1, he is working as correspondent from June 2001 till June 2003 and DW1 admitted about the writing of article in the said magazine at pages 36, 37 and 38, which is marked as Ex.D1. In fact, the box item is at page 38 which is marked as Ex.P1. DW1 has stated that he authored Ex.D1 news at page 36, 37 and 38, but strangely he has not stated the author of Ex.P1(B) which is the box item at page 38, and the box item in Ex.P1(B) does not contain any news item in other pages of Ex.P1. Even though PWs.1 to 3 were cross examined by the defence counsel, nothing was elicited that A2 is not the author of the news item, and the defence counsel could not reveal the author of Ex.P1(B). Even though PWs.1 to 3 were cross examined by the defence counsel, nothing was elicited that A2 is not the author of the news item, and the defence counsel could not reveal the author of Ex.P1(B). therefore, the evidence of DW1 is no way helpful to the case of defence that he is not the author of Ex.P1(B) and that A1 is not the editor of the magazine on the date of the impugned publication. The imputations made in Ex.P1 are against a public servant Sri A. Shiva Shankar, on his conduct and character, touching his official capacity. Due to the publication of the impugned news item, the reputation and image of PW1 has gone down among his friends and relatives and society, as spoken by PWs.2 and 3. In fact PWs.1 and 3 have categorically stated in their evidence that, after reading the publication in the said magazine, they got annoyed and the reputation of PW1 has gone down among the friends and relatives and society. Their evidence also discloses as to how PW1 was functioning during that period and also his conduct and character. On a combined reading of the evidence of PWs.1 and 3, it is proved that PW1 is well placed in the society and also in the department and is discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors. Moreover, PW1, at that time, was working as Inspector General of Police in the Intelligence wing of the Government. DW1 also admitted that he was employed in the said magazine on the date of impugned article. The alleged publication was made against PW1 without any verification, much less in the interest of public. The evidence of PW1 clinches the whole issue as to how he was discharging his duties in his official capacity and as to how he has felt after going through the publication. The prosecution placed cogent and convincing evidence in proving the allegations leveled against the accused. Moreover, in the cross examination, PW1 was confronted while putting suggestions admitted the contents of the impugned news item published in the magazine and contends that the contents of the impugned news item are related to the personal affairs of PW1 and they have nothing to do with the discharge of official functioning as Inspector General of Police or Addl. Director General of Police. Director General of Police. In his cross examination, DW1 neither denied nor disputed about the publication or contribution of the news item. When such a leading suggestion was given by the defence, it is for the defence to prove, by a cogent and convincing evidence, that the accusations levelled against the public servant are personal, but no evidence was placed by the defence on that score. Moreover, DW1 stated that the news item published in Ex.P1(B) is not connected with the publication made in Ex.D1, but to prove the same, he has not adduced any evidence except his sole testimony. It is well settled law that as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the facts which are within the specific knowledge of the accused, the burden is on him to prove the same on the preponderance of probabilities. In the present case, DW1 did not place any cogent evidence to probabilise his evidence. Even no suggestion was put to PWs. 1, 2 and 3 that A2 is not the special correspondent so far as the impugned article is concerned. Even A1 who is the printer, publisher and owner of the magazine has not placed any material on record as to who contributed the impugned news item. Therefore, the evidence of DW1 that he has not authored the impugned news item is only an afterthought to suit his convenience. Even DW1 has admitted in his evidence that the alleged box item Ex.P1(B) is not a continuation of any other news item of Ex.D1. Admittedly, Ex.D1 is printed in three pages from pages 36 to 38 in Ex.P1 and the box item is in Page 38. If A2 is not really the author of the said item, it is the duty of A1 and A2 to disclose the name and other particulars of the person who authored the said article. That apart, the accused has not placed any material on record to show that the impugned publication would come within the purview of any one or more exceptions under Section 499 IPC. Therefore, if the contents of the publication Ex.P1(B) were taken into consideration, it can be said that the accused made imputations against PW1 with regard to discharge of his official duties. It is not the case as if PW1 on his own accord filed a private complaint against A1 and A2. Therefore, if the contents of the publication Ex.P1(B) were taken into consideration, it can be said that the accused made imputations against PW1 with regard to discharge of his official duties. It is not the case as if PW1 on his own accord filed a private complaint against A1 and A2. PW1 being a public servant approached the Government for sanction of prosecution before proceeding with the matter against the accused for the imputations made against him touching his character while discharge of his official duties. The government, after careful consideration, on the request made by PW1 accorded sanction authorizing the Public Prosecutor to file the complaint. Having gone through the entire material on record, I am of the firm view that the prosecution launched against the accused is well within the provisions contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners neither filed a petition before the trial Court for discharge, nor approached this Court to quash the proceedings. The silence on the part of the accused speaks volumes about their willful conduct in making imputations against PW1 who is a public servant. It was held by the Apex Court in SEVAKRAM SOBHANI v. R.K. KARANJIA ( AIR 1981 SC 1514 ), under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, that it is baseless to think that journalists are in a better position than a common citizen, even the truth of an allegation does not allow a justification under 1st exception unless this is proved to be in the public interest. Therefore, while a defamatory statement is published, whether in a news paper or pamphlets or books, the author, publisher, editor and owner are also liable. In any view of the matter, the impugned publication in the present case does not come under any of the exceptions as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, as the impugned publication is not in public interest. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, viewed from any angle, it is clear that the accused/appellants published the defamatory statements containing imputations without due care and attention and without making any attempt of verification before publication and the same was not published in good faith. The absence of good faith is further corroborated by the fact that, except the “Maa Bhoomi” magazine no other news paper published the said offensive statement against PW1. The absence of good faith is further corroborated by the fact that, except the “Maa Bhoomi” magazine no other news paper published the said offensive statement against PW1. Therefore, the publication and printing of such untrue statement could never have been for the public good. Therefore, the said imputations exceeded the limits of fair comment and that accordingly, the accused-appellants are not justified in publishing and printing the said imputations without verification. In the above said backdrop, the editor, publisher and reporter (A1 and A2) are liable for the baseless and false matter which is published in the “Maa Bhoomi” magazine. Such an irresponsible conduct and attitude on the part of the accused cannot be said to be done in good faith. The learned trial Judge, therefore, rightly convicted A1 for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 IPC and A2 for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. Learned counsel for the appellants, during the course of arguments, pleaded for the indulgence of the Court to take a lenient view while recording the quantum of sentence, if the Court finds the guilt of the accused for the charges framed against them. It is a case where the accused A1 and A2, for the reasons best known to them, made allegations against a public servant, touching his official capacity, forgetting the norms of journalism. They did not choose to file any documentary evidence in support of their defence. It is also a case where the accused targeted a higher official in the police department and made baseless allegations touching his official duties of the public servant. The allegations levelled against the public servant are highly defamatory and baseless, and the news item was published and circulated by the accused without proper care and attention, with a dishonest and malicious intention, against all norms of fair journalism and in the most irresponsible, unethical manner, with a view to malign the character and reputation of the public servant, and the same was not published in good faith and public interest. The imputations made against PW1 cannot be equated in terms of money. It cannot be compensated also. The humiliation, suffering and mental agony of PW1 and his family members by such imputations in the impugned publication cannot be explained in words. The imputations made against PW1 cannot be equated in terms of money. It cannot be compensated also. The humiliation, suffering and mental agony of PW1 and his family members by such imputations in the impugned publication cannot be explained in words. Before parting with the judgment, it is incumbent to state about the conduct of the accused in making the publication touching the reputation of the public servant under the tyranny of journalism. It is not out of place to mention here that journalism is a noble profession, symbolises freedom in the true sense. Journalism is a very precious gem that has been found and it is necessary to ensconce it in the safe layers of good faith and dynamism. It is to enlighten the people on information will enable the progression of the nation. As powerful as it sounds, journalism is a double edged sword; when used efficiently, attaching to it further, a responsibility being a citizen and a strive towards a progressive country, it can take the nation to zenith that man can only dream of reaching. Journalism is a sacred profession that keeps the country alive and abreast with the morals and values for which it stands. Time and again the pen has proved its might. Ever since inception, journalism has been associated with respect and awe. What it does for a country as diverse as India, none else can do. However, it is very unfortunate that, by such publications, it has lost its lustre as its very nature and purpose is being grossly misconstrued and misused. This case shall stand as a stain on the otherwise pristine profession. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution is able to prove the charges framed against the accused-A1 for the offence under Sections 500, 501 and 502 r/w 34 IPC, and against accused-A2 for the offence under Section 500 IPC. As the conduct of the appellants/accused is wilful and deliberate, I see no ground to take a lenient view, and the sentence imposed by the trial Court is very much proportionate to the gravity of the offence. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.