Use the site on your own risk. In fact, there was no such attempt and there was no harassment. Defamation as a Tort As far as defamation under tort law is concerned, as a general rule, the focus is on libel i. The Magistrate ought to have seen that the news item in the Andhra Jyothi is without any material evidence and false and ought to have seen that the news item is a clear imputation concerning the appellant and intending to harm the reputation of the appellant. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions. Venkat Rao, the accused who was the Regional Manager of a Bank issued a confidential circular to the Branch Managers of his region to the effect that they should be vigilant while dealing with the complainant and others mentioned therein in their business transactions.
The editor of the newspaper is liable for prosecution and his plea that he was merely a publisher and not an author of the matter is not tenable. The chairman and managing director of a company publishing a newspaper would not be held guilty of a defamatory matter published in their newspaper in the absence of their personal involvement. He was awarded best Family Planning Surgeon by the District Medical and Health Officer, Guntur, the then Honble Health Minister and the District Collector, Guntur, respectively. 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. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that the quashing of complaint against the appellants was, therefore, improper. The Magistrate ought to have seen that Ex.
No other witness was examined in the court. Explanation 2- It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Journalists as responsible people must be presumed to know the consequences of their writings and, therefore, the courts have generally taken serious view in their matters. After following the legal formalities, the Court below tried the case and based on the evidence, it passed the impugned judgment, on which this appeal is preferred on the following grounds: The Magistrate ought to have seen that the accused absconded from duty after putting signature in the attendance register, in spite of several oral instructions and ought to have seen that there was no harassment by the appellant, for an attempt to commit suicide by the accused. Equally, service of summons on the said complaint would not amount to defamation as service of summons was only in pursuance of order of the court.
Hence , the defamation, if any caused by the article, is due to the publication made by P. According to the tenth exception, which is the last exception, to convey a caution in good faith to one person against another in good faith is not defamation provided the intention behind such caution is either the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, the good of some other person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good. The section nowhere writes that the publisher of an imputation must be its author too. No presumption under section 7 of the Act could be raised that he was responsible to control election of matter that was published in a news item. He also spoke about other news paper reporters, who were present there.
The exceptions are as under: Andhra Pradesh. Whether the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused. Where the members of a community met to discuss about certain charges against the complainant, a fellow member, and they unanimously resolved that certain conduct on his part being reprehensible they would neither attend any function at his home nor would he be invited to functions at their homes, and the language used in the resolution was not per se defamatory, it was held that the ninth exception was attracted. 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. The criminal appeal is dismissed.
Briefly, the facts of the case can be stated as under: The defacto complainant, who is the appellant herein, took charge as Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Vinukonda on 22. He also worked as in charge for the Primary Health Centers, Enugupalem and Bollapalli in addition to Government Hospital, Guntur. Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1997 7 Supreme Today 127. The seventh exception states that if a person has any authority over another, such authority having been conferred either by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other person, to pass any censure on the conduct of that other person in matters to which such lawful authority relates, is not defamation provided it has been done in good faith. Reader Interactions one should be given his rights to publish his words against any criminal law file against him and to prove him right. Defamatory statements by way of answers to questions put by an investigation officer have been held to be outside the purview of this exception.
Defamation can be filed where you reside or where the complaint was filed by her. Explanation 1 Where the accused allegedly defamed a dead person, and the complainant did not claim that he was a descendant of the deceased person allegedly defamed, and in fact, claimed that he was a devotee and admirer of the deceased person, it was held that this was not enough to sustain a case against the accused. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Exception 6 To blow a mere grammatical error out of proportions by suggesting the author to be a swindler or a libertine is to go much beyond what this exception permits one to go. The Supreme Court observed that it would be a matter of evidence in each case. According to Para 2 — Magistrate of the first class.
Where the accused, while criticising the foreword of the book authored by the complainant, went beyond the domain of honest criticism and made imputations against the complainant author, it was held that it showed malice and absence of good faith. What is the view of the Supreme Court on defamation? A mechanic, compositor or press has been held not guilty of making or publishing the matter. Where a person choses to criticise, his judgment could perhaps be biased, but there should be no reflection whatsoever upon his good faith, which has been defined in section 52 of the Code, and thus commenting fearlessly but fairly does not give cause of complaint to anyone. Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi, an interview of the appellant was published in a film magazine the contents of which were allegedly defamatory to the Marwari Community lowering them in the estimation of the public, or their reputation was lowered in the society. 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. In most cases, this translates to saying that it is not a tort to defame a deceased person since, as a general rule, the plaintiff needs to be able to prove that the defamatory words referred to him. Dua v, Chander Mohan, libellous matter was published in a newspaper.