G.P.MATHUR,J. - (1.) THIS petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the complaint and the summoning order dated February 3, 1994.
(2.) THE complaint-respondent No. 2 Nirbhai Mehrotra was initially appointed as Accountant in the Kamla Nehru Hospital, Allahabad and was subsequently designated as Deputy Director (Finance). A news item was published in "Our Leader" a English daily on October 13, 1994 of which applicant No. 1 Santosh Tewari is the publisher, applicant No. 2 Anupam Mishra is the editor and applicant No. 3 H.P. Srivastava is the working editor. The respondent No. 2 Nirbhai Mehrotra felt that the news item defamed him and accordingly he filed a criminal complaint for prosecuting the applicants under Section 500, I.P.C. in the Court of C.J.M. Ist, Allahabad on January 15, 1994. The learned Magistrate after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C. and that of two witnesses under Section 202, Cr.P.C. passed an order on February 3, 1994 summoning the applicants to face trial under Section 500 I.P.C. Before adverting to the facts of the case it is necessary to bear in mind the constitutional and statutory provision which have a bearing on the controversy raised. Article 19(1)(a) the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression to every citizen. Clause (2) of the same Article however lays down that nothing in sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercises of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence. Section 499, I.P.C. defines defamation which is made punishable under Section 500, I.P.C. The first exception to Section 499 lays down that 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 should be published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact. Second exception lays down that it is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatsoever 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. First exception to Section 499 thus shows that if the imputation made against a person is true and if it is for public good that the imputation should be made or published then even if the imputation is defamatory in character it will not amount to a criminal offence. Similarly the second exception shows that if any opinion is expressed regarding conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public function or respecting his character so far as his character appears in that conduct and if the opinion is expressed in good faith, it will not be a criminal offence even if the opinion is defamatory in character. The legal position in U.K. appears to be almost similar. In Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition) Vol. 28 Notes 284 the law on the point has been stated as under : "284. Justification and public benefit On the trial of any indictment for a defamatory libel, in addition to the regular plea of not guilty, the defendant may enter a special plea that the alleged defamatory matter is true, and that its publication is for the public benefit. The plea of truth follows the style and manner of a plea of justification in a civil action for defamation. However, in addition to the place of truth, without which the truth of the matter charged may not be inquired into, the defendant must further allege that it was for the public benefit that the defamatory matter charged should be published, and must state that particular fact or facts by reasons of which he maintains that the publication of the matter charged was for the public benefit. Thus, truth alone is no answer to the charge." There can be no doubt that freedom of speech or freedom of Press does not extend to publishing any imputation concerning any person intending to harm or, any one having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person, unless the case is covered by one of the exceptions to Section 499, I.P.C. There is often a conflict between the right guaranteed to a citizen under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the provisions of Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code which deals with defamation. Such conflict has also frequently arisen before the Courts in U.S.A. The framers of our Constitution have borrowed Article 19(1)(a) from the American Constitution. The First Amendment of American Constitution, which came into force as far back as November 3, 1971, provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the Press. It will therefore be useful to notice the legal position on this question in U.S.A. In 50 American Jurisprudence 2nd Articles 1 (Page 513) it has been stated as under : "The law in relationship to defamation is a limitation upon the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and of the press, and the vagarious and complex structure of such law, as it exists today, is to a large extent a direct result of the friction between it, as a restriction on untrammelled of expression, and the highly cherished rights of freedom of speech and of the press. On the one hand, the constitutional guarantee does not condone unjustifiable defamation, but on the other hand, Court decisions and State statutes relating to libel and slander should not be violative of a proper exercise of the constitutional privilege. Needless to say, a State statute relating to defamation should conform to other applicable constitutional requirements."
(3.) FREEDOM of speech and expression is one of the most cherished right of a citizen in a free society. It will be appropriate to recall the famous words of Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it." and that of Benjamin Franklin : "They that give up essential liberty to obtain little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor1791 safety." The Press has an important role to play in a democratic society like ours and the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution depend a good deal upon freedom of Press. It will not be out of place here to reproduce the words of a few great person regarding freedom of Press : "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the Press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." THOMAS JEFFERSON "The free press is the mother of all our liberties and of our progress under liberty." ADLAI E. STEVENSON "The press is not only free, it is powerful. That power is ours. It is the proudest that man can enjoy." BENJAMIN DISRAELI "Let it be impressed upon your minds, let it be instilled into your children, that the liberty of the press is the pall adium of all the civil, political, and religious rights." ;