HP High Court Convicts Chief Editor Of Newspaper
The Himachal Pradesh Excessive Court docket has held that calling an individual “Gunda” and accusing him of disturbing the peace and spreading “Gundaraj” with none justification or foundation quantities to defamation punishable underneath Part 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla: “Calling an individual Gunda spreading Gundaraj, being a member of Shallow Theatre Folks with none justification, will be with the intent to hurt the fame of an individual”.
Background info:
The complainant, Gopal Chand, filed a grievance towards the Pradhan, Ramesh Kumar, of Gram Panchayat Sirmour District, Himachal Pradesh and Vijay Gupta, the Chief Editor of Him Ujala Newspaper, underneath Part 500 of the IPC, for defaming him by a newspaper publication.
The complainant submitted that the Pradhan didn’t have cordial relations with him, because the Pradhan was requested to deposit the embezzled quantity by the Authorities after the villagers complained towards him. The Pradhan thought that the grievance towards him was made by the complainant, Gopal Chand, so he threatened the complainant with falsely implicating him.
As alleged by the complainant, a false information article was revealed towards him in Him Ujala Newspaper, making derogatory allegations like calling him Natak Baj and Gunda. The information was revealed by Vijay Gupta, the Chief Editor of Him Ujala, towards the data supplied to him by the Pradhan.
Thereafter, the complainant filed a grievance towards the Pradhan and the chief editor for the fee of the offence of defamation punishable underneath Part 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
Preliminary proof was recorded by the Trial Court docket, and each accused had been summoned. Through the Trial, the Pradhan denied signing any press be aware or affidavit that would have been used for publishing the defamatory information. Solely a photocopy was filed; the unique press be aware was neither produced nor was there any clarification for its absence. There was no utility filed to confess the photocopy as secondary proof.
The Chief Editor, in his defence, contended that he revealed the information article based mostly on the press be aware handed over to him by the Pradhan, and he didn’t add something from his finish.
Subsequently, the Trial Court docket concluded that there was no proof to show that the press be aware was issued by the Pradhan and the Chief Editor couldn’t be held liable as a result of the motive to defame or decrease the picture of the complainant within the eyes of the general public was not proved. Thus, each the Pradhan and the Chief Editor of the newspaper had been acquitted.
Aggrieved, the complainant filed an attraction earlier than the Excessive Court docket.
Findings:
The Excessive Court docket noticed {that a} naked perusal of the information article particularly named the complainant and his brothers as going through circumstances underneath the Dowry Act and Part 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It described them as a “shallow drama troupe” who disturbed public peace, unfold Gundaraj, and whose situation was like an injured snake.
In Gopinathan v. Ramakrishnan, 2001, the Kerala Excessive Court docket held that “calling an individual a gunda is per se defamatory.” Additionally in Sadasiba Panda v. Bansidhar Sahu, 1961, the Orissa Excessive Court docket held that “calling an individual goonda is defamatory. The Court docket remarked that it was duly proved that the information merchandise was defamatory of the complainant”.
Subsequently, the Excessive Court docket remarked that the plea of the Chief Editor stating that he had simply revealed the information as per the press be aware given by the pradhan will not be enough to absolve him.
The Chief Editor acknowledged throughout cross-examination that the Pradhan visited his workplace and gave him a press be aware, and the Chief Editor revealed it as it’s with out including something.
The Excessive Court docket rejected the competition which acknowledged that the Chief Editor could not be held answerable for the publication of the information merchandise within the newspaper. The court docket remarked that it was clear from the assertion of the chief editor that he didn’t dispute the information merchandise; therefore, recourse can’t be needed to the provisions of the Press and Registration Act to find out the writer.
The presumption contained within the Press and Registration Act will apply within the absence of proof. It has been noticed in Prosser’s Handbook of the Regulation of Torts that the presumptions will be utilized within the absence of proof, however on this case, the Chief Editor accepted that he had revealed it.
The Excessive Court docket famous that the Trial Court docket wrongly believed that the Chief Editor acted in good religion simply because he revealed the press be aware with out altering it. Nonetheless, the regulation requires a writer to verify whether or not what they print is true or not in the event that they wish to declare good religion.
On this case, the Chief Editor made no effort to confirm the allegations. Calling an individual a member of a gaggle of ‘Shallow Theatre Folks’, breaching peace and spreading ‘Gundaraj’ doesn’t shield any public curiosity. There was no proof on document that the complainant is a member of the theatre group, breached public peace, or had unfold Gundaraj.
The Court docket held that publishing these allegations with out foundation couldn’t be thought of an act carried out in good religion or within the public curiosity.
The Excessive Court docket remarked that when an imputation regarding the fame of an individual is made with none justification, it may result in an inference that the publication was with the intent to hurt the fame of the particular person.
Thus, the Excessive Court docket put aside the acquittal of the Chief Editor, and he was convicted underneath Part 500 of the Indian Penal Code for defamation. Nonetheless, because the press be aware was by no means proved, the Court docket upheld the acquittal of the Pradhan.
Case Identify: Gopal Chand v/s Ramesh Kumar & one other
Case No.: Cr. Attraction No. 139 of 2011
Date of Determination: 03.07.2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms.Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.2: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Basant Pal Thakur, Advocate.
