LexJEFFREY J. DIERMEIER AND ANR. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (201 O] 7 S.C.R. 128 JEFFREY J. DIERMEIER AND ANR. V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1079 of 2010) MAY 14, 2010 [D.K. JAIN AND H. L. DATTU, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: c s. 499 - Defamation - Meaning and Ingredients of - Held: The offence of defamation is the harm caused to reputation of a person - To constitute "defamation'', there must be an imputation and such imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or knowing or having reason to 0 believe that it will harm the reputation of the person about whom it is made. s. 499, Tenth Exception - Charges of defamation - Ambit and scope of - Held: For invoking the aid of Tenth Exception to s.499 /PC, both "good faith" and "public good" E have to be established by the accused - However, no rigid test for deciding whether the accused acted in "good faith" and for "public good" under the said Exception can be laid down - The question has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case, having regard to the nature of F imputation made; the circumstances on which it came to be made and the status of the person who makes the imputation as a/so the status of the person against whom imputation is allegedly made - On facts, case for quashing the complaint uls. 482 Cr.P.C. not made out - Code of Criminal Procedure, G 1973 - S. 482. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Inherent powers of the High Court - Scope and ambit of - Discussed. The Chartered Financial Analysts Institute (CFA H 128 JEFFREY J. DIERMEIER AND ANR. v. STATE OF 129 WEST BENGAL & ANR. Institute) is a non stock corporation, incorporated under A the laws of the State of Virginia, United States, which confers the designation of Chief Financial Analyst (CFA) upon its members who fulfil a minimum professional criterion. Appellant no.1 is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the CFA Institute, while appellant no.2 is the President of the Indian Association of Investment Professionals and a member of the CFA Institute. B In the year 1985, on being approached by C respondent no.~- Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India (ICFAI), the CFA Institute had entered into a licence agreement with them to conduct its CFA program in India. The agreed arrangement continued for quite some time, whereafter the CFA Institute decided to wean D off its arrangement with respondent No.2 as it felt that the latter was not adhering to the· required standards and quality in the said program; and issued a notice of termination of its licence. Subsequently, in the year 2004, the CFA Institute filed E F a ci~il suit in the High Court of Delhi for permanent injunction restraining respondent No.2 from using the trade marks, services, service marks or trade name CFA, Chartered Financial Analyst, The Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India, ICFA and ICFAI or any other name or mark identical or deceptively similar to these marks and passing off CFA Institute Programs or business as that of CFA Institute. The High Court granted interim injunction against respondent no.2. However, respondent No.2, through its sponsored University in G Tripura, issued advertisement inviting applications for fresh enrolments for award of "CFA" certification. According to the CFA Institute, since the programmes which were continuing at the time of H 130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R. A passing of the order of interim injunction by the High Court of Delhi had come to an end, the invitation for fresh enrolment in terms of the said advertisement was for subsequent programmes, which were not in existence at the time of the interim injunction order and, therefore, it B was in breach of the said interim injunction. Accordingly, the CFA Institute issued a public notice under the caption "A Word of Caution to the Indian Investment Community". Alleging that the said public notice was defamatory C within the meaning of s.499 IPC, respondent No.2 filed a private complaint against the appellants for offence under s.500 r/w s.34 of IPC. The gravamen of the allegations made in the complaint was that the CFA Institute, through appellant no.1, issued the offending D "Word of Caution" wherein they: (1) deliberately and consciously did not publish the full text of the interim injunction order granted by the High Court against respondent No.2; they did not mention that order was with a rider that it will not c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.