KAZI MOHAMMED VALI AHAMED SAHIB Vs. SYED SULAIMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant herein, a Kazi at Coimbatore used to lead the prayers during Ramzan and Bakrid at the Idgah near Mettupalayam road. One group of Muslims opposed him. He had obtained a decree in O.S. No. 1783 of 1966 on the file of the District Munsif of Coimbatore, declaring his exclusive right to hold the Idd prayers at the Idgah. The Respondent who owns a press by name, Jupiter Press at Coimbatore, belongs to this opposition group. Ex. P. 2 notice containing allegations, false and defamatory, against the Appellant, was printed and published from his press. The Appellant filed a complaint under Section 501 of the Indian Penal Code in the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tiruppur against the Respondent. The Respondent admitted the printing of the notice, but stated that the order was placed by one Akella Sunnath Jamath Committee and that he printed it after going through the deposition of the Appellant in the Civil Court. Observing that the Respondent had bona fide believed the imputations to be true, the learned Magistrate acquitted him. The correctness of this acquittal is canvassed in this appeal.

(2.) Ex. P. 2 is the notice printed in the Respondent's press. The following imputations are there in this notice: (i) the Appellant collects interest from his debtors; (ii) He has not married in accordance with the shariat; and (iii) he is a liar. The Respondent admits that this notice was printed in his press, but he states that he bona fide believed the imputations to be true after perusing the Appellant's deposition in the Civil Court. Printing or engraving of any matter defamatory in nature by a person, knowing or having good reason to believe that such matter is defamatory, is an offence punishable under Section 501, Indian Penal Code. The Respondent states that he never intended to defame the Appellant, that after going through the Appellant's deposition in the Civil Court, he bona fide believed that the imputations were true and that as such he printed the notice. Abu Saliha (D.W. 2) is the secretary of Naha Mohalla mosque. D.W.1 is a member of this Jamath. D.W. 2 has deposed that as per the decisions of the Jamath, the manuscript of Ex. P. 2 was drafted by him. Both D.W. 1 and 2 have sworn that when they gave the manuscript to the Respondent, he hesitated and that thereafter they told him that most of the allegations in the script were admitted by the Appellant in various proceedings of the court, that they showed him certified copies and that thereafter he agreed to print this notice. Good faith does not require logical infallibility. The proper point to be decided in dealing with the question of good faith is not whether the allegations put forward by the accused in support of the defamation are in substance true, but whether he was informed and had good reasons, after due care and attention, to believe that such allegations were true. Whether before making the imputations, he made any enquiry and whether he had good reason to believe the truth of the allegations, are questions which should be considered in deciding the question of good faith. For Exception (9) to S. 499 I.P.C. proof of truth or the impugned statement is not necessary. However, it must be shown that the belief in the impugned statement had a rational basis and was not just a blind simple belief. It will be sufficient if he proves that on reasonable grounds he believed the imputation to be true and in that belief he bona fide made it.

(3.) Ex. P. 4 is the certified copy of the judgment in O.S. No. 1007 of 1960 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore. Nawab Tippu Sultan had made a grant of certain properties to one Kazi Mohideen, a predecessor-in-interest of the Appellant. These properties were acquired by Government and an amount of Rs. 50,751 and odd is in deposit in court. The Appellant has been claiming and receiving interest on this amount, In his affidavit in O.S. 262 of 1942, he has admitted that he has been receiving interest. There is a common belief tinder the Muslim public that receipt of interest is prohibited by the Holy Koran. The Appellant has admitted that receiving of interest is opposed to the tenets of Islam. The next allegation is that the Appellant has not married in accordance with the Shariat. Ex. P. 3 is the certified copy of the judgment in O.S. 1783 of 1966 filed by the Appellant. The Appellant's second wife was from Calicut. He had divorced her. Two years later, he had again married her. According to the Shariat the husband can remarry his divorced wife only if she had been married to another person after the divorce and both of them had lived as husband and wife and subsequently she had been divorced Voluntarily and at least four months had elapsed after this divorce. The Appellant in his disposition in that suit has stated as below:?