SEWAKRAM SOBHANI versus R.K. KARANJIA, CHIEF EDITOR, WEEKLY BLITZ & ORS.

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 627 · Decided: 01-05-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SEWAKRAM SOBHANI 
v. 
R.K. KARANJIA, CHIEF EDITOR, 
WEEKLY BLITZ & ORS. 
May 1, 1981 
[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.] 
627 
Penal Code-Section 499-Ninth exception-Scope of-Respondent made 
imputations regarding character of appellant in an article published in his journal 
purporting to be based on confidential report of a high official of State Government-
Government claimed privilege in regard to report-Magistrate proceeded to record 
plea of accused without seeing report-Government wuived privilege before High 
Court-In revision High Court held t~e news item justified on the basis of report-
High Court, whether competent to quash the order of Magistrate. 
A 
B 
c 
A news item published in the Blitz weekly of which the respondent was the 
Editor, stated that the appellant enticed a female detenu who alongwith him, 
D 
was detained in the Central Jail under the Maintenance of Internal Security 'Act 
and that she had conceived through him and that on getting released on parole 
she had had the pregnancy terminated. It was further stated that a confidential 
enquiry conducted by a senior officer of the Home Department ·revealed that it 
was the appellant who was responsible for the detenu's pregnancy.· 
On release from jail the appellant lodged a criminal complaint against the 
E 
respondent. Before the Magistrate the respondent prayed that the report of the 
Enquiry Officer be sent for. But the report could not be obtained because the 
State Government claimed privilege 
in respect of that report. When the 
Magistrate proceeded to record the plea of the accused under section 251 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondent requested that his plea be recorded 
only after the enquiry report was produced; but the Magistrate rejected the 
request. 
The respondent thereupon filed a revision before the High Court for setting 
aside the order of the Magistrate. Waiving privilege the State Government pro-
duced a copy of the enquiry report before the High Court. 
A single Judge of the High Court quashed the proceedings on the view that 
the respondent's case clearly fell within the ambit of the ninth exception to sec-
tion 499, I.P.C. because, ~ccording to him, the publication had been made honestly 
in the belief of its truth and also upon reasonable ground for such belief, after the 
exercise of such means to verify its truth as would be taken by a man of ordinary 
prudence under like circumstances. 
F 
G 
On the question whether the High Court was right in quashing the order of 
H 
the Magistrate, remanding the case to the Magistrate. 
628 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1981] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
(Per majority : Chinnappa Reddy and A.P. Sen JJ-Baharul Islam J dissen-
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
ting) 
HELD : The order passed by the High Court should be set aside. The 
Magistrate should record the plea of the accused under section 251 Cr. P.C. and 
thereafter proceed with the trial according to law. 
(Per Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 
To attract the ninth exception to section 499, I.P.C. the imputations must 
be shown to have been made (1) in good faith and (2) for the protection of the 
person making it or of any other person or for the public good. The insistence 
of the section is upon the exercise of due care and attention. The standard of 
care and attention must depend on the circumstances of an individual case, 
the nature of imputation, the need and the opportunity for verification and so on. 
In every case it is a question of fact to be decided on its particular facts and 
circumstances. [631 A-Bl 
Harbhajan Stngh v. State of Punjab, [1965] 3 SCR 235 @ 244, Chaman Lal 
v. The State of Punjab [1970] 3 SCR 913 @ 916 and 918. 
Several questior>s may arise for consideration depending on the stand taken 
by the accused at the trial and how the ·complainant proposed to demolish 
the defence. In the instant case the stage for deciding these questions had not 
arrived yet. Answers to such questions, even before the plea of the accused was 
recorded, could only be a priori conclusions. [632 HJ 
The respondent;s prayer before the High Court was to quash the 
Magistrate's order and not to quash the complaint itself as the High Court has 
done. But that was only a technical defect which need not be taken seriously in 
an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution where the Court is concerned 
with substantial justice and not with shadow puppetry. [630 G] 
(Per A.P. Sen /.} 
The order of the High Court quashing the prosecutio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.