An Assignment of

Law Of Crimes

On the Topic

Defamation

Prepared under the guidance of Professor Rose Verghese

Submitted byAyush JhaB.A.LL.B (H.)4th SemesterClass roll no. 09

Table of Contents

IntroductionSection 499IngredientsSection 500Section 501Section 502

Introduction

An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Such defamation is couched in 'defamatory language'. A person who is aggrieved by the defamatory words of a person can seek redressal both in public and private law, i.e., liability of the offender arises in law of torts as well as in law of crimes.

Defamation has been defined under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 500 of the Code prescribes punishment for the offence of defamation. Other sections related to the offence of defamation are S. 501 and S. 502. However, every statement or action made by a person, lessening the repute of another cannot said to be defamatory if it falls within any of the ten exceptions to s. 499 of the IPC.

Section 499. 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 expected, of 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-No imputation is said to harm a person's 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.Illustrations(a) A says-"Z is an honest man; he never stole B's watch" ; intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions.(b) A is asked who stole B's watch. A points to Z, intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B's Watch. This is defamation unless it fall within one of the exceptions.(c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B's watch, intending it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions.First Exception-Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published: --It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact.Second Exception-Public conduct of Public servants: -- It is not defamation to express in a good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.Third Exception-Conduct of any person touching any public question: -- It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting to conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.IllustrationIt is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting Z's conduct in petitioning Government on a public question, in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public question, in presiding or attending a such meeting, in forming or joining any society which invites the public support, in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate for any situation in the efficient discharge of the duties of which the public is interested.Fourth Exception-Publication of reports of proceedings of Courts: -- It is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings.Explanation-A justice of the Peace or other officer holding an inquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of the above section.Fifth Exception-Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned: --It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.Illustrations(a) A says-"I think Z's evidence on that trial is so contradictory that he must be stupid or dishonest". A is within this exception if he says this in good faith, inasmuch as the opinion which he express respects Z's character as it appears in Z's conduct as a witness, and no further.(b) But if A says-"I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial because I know him to be a man without veracity" ; A is not within this exception, inasmuch as the opinion which he express of Z's character, is an opinion not founded on Z's conduct as a witness.Sixth Exception-Merits of public performance: --It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further.Explanation-A performance may be substituted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public.Illustrations(a) A person who publishes a book, submits that book to the judgment of the public.(b) A person who makes a speech in public, submits that speech to the judgment of the public.(c) An actor or singer who appears on a public stage, submits his acting or signing in the judgment of the public.(d) A says of a book published by Z-"Z's book is foolish; Z must be a weak man. Z's book is indecent; Z must be a man of impure mind". A is within the exception, if he says this in good faith, in as much as the opinion which he express of Z respects Z's character only so far as it appears in Z's book, and no further.(e) But if A says-"I am not surprised that Z's book is foolish and indecent, for he is a weak man and a libertine". A is not within this exception, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of Z's character is an opinion not founded on Z's book.Seventh Exception-Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another:- It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates.IllustrationA judge censuring in good faith the conduct of a witness, or of an officer to the Court; a head of a department censuring in good faith those who are under his orders; a parent censuring in good faith a child in the presence of other children; a school-master, whose authority is derived from a parent, censuring in good faith a pupil in the presence of other pupils; a master censuring a servant in good faith for remissness in service; a banker censuring in good faith the cashier of his bank for the conduct of such cashier as such cashier-are within the exception.Eight Exception-Accusation preferred in good faith to authorized person. -- It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.IllustrationIf A in good faith accuse Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Z's master ; if a in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, and child, to Z's father-A is within this exception.Ninth Exception-Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's 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.

Illustrations(a) A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business-"Sell nothing to Z unless he pays you ready money, for I have no opinion of his honesty". A is within the exception, if he has made this imputation on Z in good faith for the protection of his own interests.(b) A, a Magistrate, in making a report of his own superior officer, casts an imputation on the character of Z. Here, if the imputation is made in good faith, and for the public good, A is within the exception.Tenth Exception-Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good: --It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.

Ingredients:1. Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person.2. Such imputation must have been made by words, either spoken or intended to be read, or signs, or visible representations.3. Such imputation was made with the intention of harming or with knowledge or reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerning to whom it is made.Makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person.- every such person who is engaged in composing, dictating, writing or in any way contributing to the making of libel is the maker of the libel. In N. L. Shah v. Patel Maganbhai Revabhai and another[footnoteRef:2], an interesting situation arose for decision. There was agitation of lawyers in Gujarat in connection with appointment and transfer of Chief Justices of High Courts. An editorial in a newspaper criticized this agitation. The lawyers were inter alia described as Kajia Dalal i.e. dispute broker, in the editorial. In a suit for defamation against editor, the Gujarat High Court held that the editorial did not refer to the complainant personally or to any other individual but referred to the lawyers as a class and at the most the lawyers of Gujarat. The words Kajia Dalal was held to be used in relation to the lawyers as a class and is not referable to a determinate section of lawyers, namely, the lawyers who were participating in the agitation. Hence no defamation was done by the editor. [2: 1984 Cr. L.J. 1790 (Guj.)]

In Ashok Kumar Jain and Others v State of Maharashtra[footnoteRef:3], it was held that where a defamatory statement against a person is published in a newspaper, the editor, printer and publisher who has made declaration and is shown in paper as such is liable. Where it is alleged that the Chairman of Board of Directors of Company and its General Manager took part in selling out newspaper, it is indicative of the fact that they had prior knowledge of defamatory matter in paper which they could have prevented but they did not, they would be guilty of the offence. [3: 1986 Cr. L.J. 1987 (Bom.)]

In Shahrukh Khan v. State of Rajasthan and ors.[footnoteRef:4] under the direction of Mr. Rajiv Mehra, a Hindi film Ram Jaane was released for public viewing after due certification by the Central Board of Certification ('the Board', for short). The Petitioner played the role of the protagonist in the film. In the later part of the film, the hero is tried for triple murders. In the courtroom scene, the defense lawyer gets up to defend the hero who is, however, bent upon confessing his crime. He, therefore, questions the conduct of the lawyer and says: [4: RLW 2008 (1) Raj 809]

(This lawyer well knows that I have killed the three persons, yet he tries to save me. Why? For the sake of money, no? For the sake of money, he sells his morals. He sells the laws. By selling the laws, you people have turned life into a misery.) (English translation of the Hindi dialogue)The respondents filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Shah Rukh Khan (the Petitioner), Mr. Rajiv Mehra (the director), Mr. Pravesh Mehra (the producer), Mr. ShriKant Sharma (the co-scriptwriter), Ms. Juhi Chawla (the heroine), and M/s Vinayak Film Industries (the distributors in Rajasthan), and M/s Unkown Distributors (distributors for India) alleging defamation and criminal conspiracy, offences Under Section s 500,501 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.It was held by the Rajasthan High Court that the law requires that the defamatory statement, in order to be actionable, be made against a definite and an identifiable group. The remark made by the petitioner was applicable to the lawyers as a community. Thus, a group of lawyers could not file a complaint against the petitioner for offence Under Section s 499 and 500 IPC. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.

Imputation should have been made by words either spoken or intended to be read by signs or by visible representation.- In India a person can be defamed not only by writings, but also by spoken words. Here at this point Indian law differs from English law of defamation. Under English Law only writing, printing, engraving or some other process only can constitute defamation. In Indian Penal Code word defamation has been used to denote what is known as libel and slander in England. The words visible representation will include every possible form of defamation which ingenuity can devise. Thus a statue, an effigy, chalk marks on wall, signs or pictures may constitute a libel, in addition to words spoken.

Intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm- There must be an intention to harm the reputation of the complainant or the knowledge that the imputation will harm the reputation of such person. It is not necessary that actual harm should result. By harm is meant imputation on a mans character made and expressed to others so as to lower him in their estimation. Anything which lowers him in his own estimation does not constitute defamation.

Exception 1- the requirement of this exception are:1. That the impugned statement must be shown to be true.2. That its publication must be shown to be for public good.This exception and exception 4 requires that the imputation should be true. The remaining exceptions require that it should be made in good faith. It is also necessary that truth when set up as a defence must extend to the entire defamation and not only to a part of it.Where the imputation is good but it is not published for public good but only for a community such a publication cannot held to be good.In Jawaharlal Darda v. Manoharrao Ganapatrao[footnoteRef:5], the respondent filed a complaint alleging that by publishing a news item concerning misappropriation of government funds in news paper Dainik Lokmath, J.L. Darda along with others have committed offence of defamation. [5: AIR 1998 SC 2117]

The Supreme Court in this case observed that- what the accused had published was an accurate and true report of the proceedings of the Assembly. Involvement of the respondent was disclosed by the preliminary inquiry made by the Government. If the accused bona fide believing the version of the Minister to be true published the report in good faith it cannot be said that they intended to harm the reputation of the complainant.Exception 2- Any person occupying a public position renders himself open to criticism for his actions while discharging his functions from the position he occupies. Such a criticism must be made in good faith and it must relate to actions of public servants.It was held In re Arundhati Roy[footnoteRef:6], that a person claiming the benefit of second exception to section 499 IPC is required to shoe that the opinion expressed by him was in good faith which related to the conduct of a public servant in discharge of his public functions or respecting his character appears in that conduct. [6: 2002 Cr. L.J. 1792 (SC)]

Exception 3- the conduct of publicists who take part in politics or other matters concerning the public can be commented in good faith. In construing a document the courts are not concerned with what the parties intended but with language actually employed. Exception 4- this exception requires that the report of the proceedings of a court of justice should be without malice. It should be fair and accurate report of what took place before tribunal. This exception does not require good faith. It is not confined to judgment and orders but also covers pleadings whether relevant or not.In T. Satish Pai v. Narayan Nayak[footnoteRef:7], it was held that once FIR is lodged alleging commission of offences under IPC and public authorities take cognizance of the same initiating necessary legal action, report published in newspaper of any of the proceedings relating to crime giving contents of FIR would not amount to defamation. Publication of such news item will squarely fall within fourth exception of Section 499, IPC and proceedings against journalist is not sustainable. [7: 2002 Cri. L.J. 4416 (Karnataka)]

Exception 5- the administration of justice is a matter of universal interest to the whole public. Therefore, a free comment on judgments of the court, the verdict of the jury, the conduct of the parties and of witnesses is necessary. The criticism must not intentionally assail the character of others or impute criminality ti them. A journalist is supposed to discharge his duties fairly and if his comments are fair no one will be permitted to complain.Exception 6- this exception deals with literary criticism of public performance submitted to its judgment. It covers criticism of book published on literature, art, painting speeches made in public, acting, singing, etc. The criticism must be fair and made in good faith.Exception 7- this exception allows a person under whose authority others have been placed either by their consent or by law to censure in good faith, those who are so placed under his authority so far as regard matters to which that authority relates. A Municipal engineer reported to the Municipality that stock of meal was taken away by the contractor. It was held that the if the report being made was in good faith this exception will apply[footnoteRef:8] . Statements made by a person during police investigation merely expressing suspicion as to complicity of certain person in crime will not amount to defamation. [8: J.N. Mukherjee, AIR 1934 Pat. 548]

Exception 8- this exception will be attracted if it is proved-1. That the person to whom the complaint was made had lawful authority over the officer complained against2. That the accusation was made in good faithIt is necessary for the application of this exception that the complaint is bona fide and not made with the intention to injure anyone. A complaint to a police constable is not privileged and will not fall under this exception.Exception 9- where a defamatory statement is made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, this exception will come into operation. Interest of the person has to be real and legitimate, e.g. where a notice was issued on behalf of a Hindu widow, charging with criminal breach of trust and the reply of the accused was that the widow was living an immoral life, it was held that the exception applied.Exception 10- for attracting this exception it must be proved that the accused intended in good faith to convey a caution to one person against another, intending for the good of the person to whom the caution was conveyed or to some person in whom the person is interested or for public good. The caution is intended to be given to the person to whom it is intended. The imputation must be made in good faith.Section 500. Punishment for defamation- 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. Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory.- 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. 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.

References: Indian Penal Code, S.N. Mishra Law of Crimes, K.D. Gaur www.indiankanoon.com www.judis.nic.in