TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court reinstates prosecution order, emphasizes trial proceedings for 'Good Faith' & 'Public Good' under Section 500 IPC</h1> <h3>Sewakram Sobhani Versus R.K. Karanjia and Ors.</h3> Sewakram Sobhani Versus R.K. Karanjia and Ors. - AIR 1981 SC 1514, 1981 (1) SCALE 851, (1981) 3 SCC 208, [1981] 3 SCR 627 Issues Involved:1. Quashing of the High Court's order.2. Application of the Ninth Exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.3. Determination of 'Good Faith' and 'Public Good' in the context of defamation.4. Procedural propriety in handling the Enquiry Report and its evidentiary value.Detailed Analysis:1. Quashing of the High Court's Order:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order which had quashed the prosecution of the respondent under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court had pre-judged the issue without a trial, which was deemed a miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court emphasized that the matter was at the stage of recording the plea of the accused under Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the trial should proceed according to law.2. Application of the Ninth Exception to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code:The High Court had quashed the complaint on the basis that the publication fell within the Ninth Exception to Section 499 IPC, which protects imputations made in good faith for the public good. However, the Supreme Court held that the determination of whether the Ninth Exception applies is a matter for trial. The burden of proving that the imputation was made in good faith and for the public good lies on the accused.3. Determination of 'Good Faith' and 'Public Good':The Supreme Court reiterated that 'Good Faith' and 'Public Good' are questions of fact that require evidence. The standard of care and attention must depend on the circumstances of the individual case, the nature of the imputation, the need and opportunity for verification, and the position of the person making the imputation. The Court cited previous judgments, including Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab and Chaman Lal v. The State of Punjab, to emphasize that good faith involves due care, caution, and prudence.4. Procedural Propriety in Handling the Enquiry Report:The High Court had made use of the Enquiry Report, which was claimed to be privileged by the State Government. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had erred in using the report without it being properly admitted as evidence. The Enquiry Report, being a confidential document, should not have been made public or used to quash the proceedings without proper consideration of its evidentiary value.Conclusion:The Supreme Court directed the Magistrate to proceed with the trial by recording the plea of the accused under Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code and then continue according to law. The determination of whether the publication falls within the Ninth Exception to Section 499 IPC, involving 'Good Faith' and 'Public Good', must be made based on evidence during the trial. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
