T.G. GOSWAMI Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Shri T.G. Goswami was convicted by the Additional District Magistrate, Patiala under Section 500, I.P.C. for publishing two defamatory libels in the issue dated 7 -5 -50 of a weekly paper known as Malwa Gazette, Patiala, of which he is the printer and publisher, and was sentenced to two months S. I. and a fine of Rs. 300/ -. His appeal to the Sessions Judge having failed he has presented this petition for revision. The complainant was S. Mangal Singh, Director of Publicity of this Union and also the Officer in charge Bhupindra. State Press, Patiala and he alleged that he had been brought into contempt and hatred and defamed by publication in the said paper of an editorial which contained the following passages:

(2.) IN the first instance Shri Puran Chand, the learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the trial was vitiated because the accused had not been allowed to produce his entire evidence in defence. In this connection he has drawn my attention to the list of defence witnesses submitted by the accused after the charge was framed on 29 -1 -1951. The contention is that the learned trial Judge without recording any reasons, refused to summon the witnesses mentioned at Nos. 13, 18, 19, 20 and 21. It is correct that these witnesses were not summoned and no detailed reasons for doing so, were given. But I cannot accept the argument that the conviction should be set aside simply on the ground that no reasons were recorded, particularly when, as will be presently seen, they are so obvious and self -evident. Nos. 18 and 19 were merely blank spaces without mentioning the name of any witness. A note appended at the close of the application stated that the names were intentionally omitted because of the danger of the persons, who were intended to be produced, being won over by the complainant.

(3.) ON merits, Shri Puran Chand contended that one of the imputations did not specifically mention the name of the complainant and that the publication of the articles was covered by more than one of the exceptions to section 499 and was, therefore, not actionable under Section 500, I.P.C. Ex. PB which stated that several thousands of rupees had been embezzled in the purchase of printing machinery for the State Press and the staff Wagon no doubt did not expressly mention that the complainant was responsible for the embezzlement or was the person who actually did it. But to the readers of the paper, who knew that the complainant, as the head of the Department, was the chief or the sole authority to effect the two purchases, nothing more need have been said to impress that the complainant was the person who was accused of misappropriation. It has been brought into evidence that the purchases were actually made by the complainant and since he was at the head of the affairs he could generally be known to have made them. M/S Amolak Ram, Manohar Singh, Raja Shiv Dayal Singh, Jaswant Singh and Vaid Kanti Chander P.Ws. have deposed that no sooner than they read the article in the Malwa Gazette they concluded that the imputation was made against the complainant. Their evidence can readily be accepted when the publication objected to is read in its context. The officer in charge of the Department was expected to have been responsible for negotiating and completing the two deals and any one who knew the complainant to be at the head of the affairs must have connected the insinuation to him. The identity of the complainant to be the target of the accusation was not a thing that could not be known to the readers of the paper. The standard to be applied in proof that the defamatory matter refers to the complainant is, would a reasonable man so understand it. A complainant can often be able to make good this part of his case even though his name is not mentioned in the libel. If the readers of the publication can know well who is aimed at, the very same injury is inflicted if his name was clearly mentioned. I have no doubt in my mind that the imputation was leveled against the complainant and that it could easily be understood to have been meant for him.