Whether offence of defamation is made out even if there is true narration of incident in newspaper?

As can be seen from the First exception, whether or not the statement or imputation is for the public good is a question of fact. Both these exceptions save the imputations which are made in public good. It being a pure question of fact, as has been observed in the case of Dilip Babasaheb Londhe (supra), it would be appropriate to leave it for the decision at the trial to ascertain if the news item was published in good faith, by extending suitable opportunity to both the sides to lead evidence.

13. As has been held in the case of Sewakram v. R.K Karanjia; (1981) 3 SCC 208, journalist do not enjoy some kind of special privilege or have a greater freedom than others to make imputations or allegations, sufficient to ruin the reputation of a citizen. They are in no better position than any other person. Truth of an allegation does not permit a justification under First exception unless it is proved to be in public good. The question whether or not it was for public good is a question of fact which needs to be proved like any other relevant fact. Bearing in mind these principles, without intending to traverse the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to inquire into and decide the issue, publishing names of the respondent no. 2 and his associates in a news item which could have been published by deleting the names is indeed a material circumstance which will have to be borne in mind by the Magistrate during the trial. At this juncture, in my considered view, publication of such item which has the potential of putting the respondent no. 2 to disrepute and to lower him in the esteems of the others is prima facie sufficient to constitute defamation as defined under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and the doors cannot be shut at the threshold.

In the High Court of Bombay

(Before Mangesh S. Patil, J.)

Vijay Jawaharlalji Darda  v. State of Maharashtra 

Criminal Application No. 2032 of 2009

Decided on October 4, 2019, [Reserved On: 04.09.2019]

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 2634

Print Page

Whether Threats by journalists who are reporters to publish news defaming a person amount to extortion?

The definition of injury is given in Section 44 which reads as under:—

“44. “Injury”. - The word “injury” denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property.”

8. The definition clearly shows that the injury not only to body, but injury to mind, reputation also is an injury. Definition of extortion is given in Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as under:—

“383. Extortion. - Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits “extortion”.

Illustration (a). A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z to give him money. A has committed extortion.

9. From the plain reading of Section 383 coupled with definition of “injury”, it is clear that there should not be any physical harm to body. Even harm to reputation and mind is an injury. Therefore, submission of learned Counsel for the accused that there was no injury to the complainant has no force.

11. In the present case, accused not only threatened the complainant to initiate action against the complainant by respective authority but compelled the complainant to pay Rs. 50,000/- to him. At the time of trap arranged by the police, the accused has accepted Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant. Complainant could not have given the amount on that day to the accused but because the accused threatened him saying that he is a journalist and by influencing Collector etc., the houses constructed on the plots would be demolished. 

14. The illustrations to Section 384 are very clear. All the illustrations show that even a threatening by journalists who are reporters to publish news in a newspaper to defame that person amounts to extortion. Illustration-A to Section 383 is very clear. It shows that “A” threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning “Z” unless “Z” gives him money. He thus induces “Z” to give him money. “A” has committed extortion. In the present case, the accused being a journalist threatened the complainant that he would complain the authority to demolish the houses constructed on the plots. He would not do so unless the complainant pays Rs. 50,000/- to him. He induced the complainant to pay Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, the “extortion” as defined under Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code is rightly proved in the present case against the accused.

In the High Court of Bombay

(Before M.G. Giratkar, J.)

Sharad Balkrushna Deotale v. State of Maharashtra

Criminal Revision Application (Revn) No. 180 of 2011

Decided on February 21, 2019

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 305

Print Page