1981 (5) TMI 131 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court reinstates prosecution order, emphasizes trial proceedings for 'Good Faith' & 'Public Good' under Section 500 IPC

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order quashing the prosecution under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the need for trial ... Ninth Exception to Section 499 IPC - Good faith - Public good - Defamation - Recording of plea under Section 251 CrPC - Quashing of prosecution under Section 482 CrPC - Use of privileged inquiry report in criminal proceedings - Burden of proof for exceptions to defamation - Freedom and responsibility of the pressQuashing of prosecution under Section 482 CrPC - Recording of plea under Section 251 CrPC - Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal prosecution and complaint, or whether the matter should be remitted to the Magistrate to record the accused's plea under Section 251 CrPC and proceed to trial. - HELD THAT: - The majority held that the High Court erred in quashing the prosecution at the interlocutory stage. At the stage when the High Court acted the matter stood for recording of the accused's plea under Section 251 CrPC; the Magistrate was required to ascertain whether the accused pleaded guilty or demanded trial. The High Court pre-judged the defence by treating the Ninth Exception as already made out, relying on the Inquiry Report and thereby usurping the fact-finding role of the trial court. Pre-trial determination using the Inquiry Report amounted to a manifest miscarriage of justice because questions of good faith and public good are matters of evidence for the trial. Consequently the majority set aside the High Court order and directed the Magistrate to record the plea under Section 251 CrPC and proceed according to law. [Paras 14, 18, 26, 28, 34]High Court's order quashing the prosecution set aside; Magistrate directed to record plea under Section 251 CrPC and proceed with trial.Ninth Exception to Section 499 IPC - Good faith - Public good - Burden of proof for exceptions to defamation - Whether the defence under the Ninth Exception (good faith and public good) can be decided at the interlocutory stage without trial. - HELD THAT: - The Court emphasised that both 'good faith' and 'public good' are questions of fact and matters for evidence; 'good faith' (per Section 52 IPC) requires due care and attention and is not established by mere assertion. The Ninth Exception imposes an evidentiary enquiry as to whether the publisher exercised reasonable care and had reasonable grounds to believe the imputations. These are fact-specific questions-whether enquiries were made, the nature and circumstances of publication, absence of malice and the position of the publisher-and cannot be resolved a priori before recording the accused's plea and adducing evidence at trial. Thus the Ninth Exception cannot appropriately be held to apply as a preliminary pre-trial conclusion in the absence of trial evidence. [Paras 5, 15, 30, 31, 34]Good faith and public good under the Ninth Exception are questions of fact requiring evidence; they cannot be finally decided at the interlocutory stage.Use of privileged inquiry report in criminal proceedings - Quashing of prosecution under Section 482 CrPC - Whether the High Court could properly rely on the confidential Inquiry Report (claimed privileged) to quash the prosecution. - HELD THAT: - The majority expressed grave doubt about the propriety of the High Court making use of an Inquiry Report in respect of which the State had claimed privilege and which had no independent evidentiary value unless proved by evidence aliunde. Although the Government later released the report, reliance upon it by the High Court to pre-judge the defence was improper. The contents of the Inquiry Report cannot substitute for the evidentiary process at trial; the Report cannot, by itself, discharge the accused's obligation to establish the Ninth Exception nor can it justify summary quashing of the prosecution without trial. [Paras 13, 22, 28]The Inquiry Report could not be used to pre-judge the case; reliance on it to quash the prosecution was improper.Defamation - Freedom and responsibility of the press - Whether journalists enjoy a special privilege to publish imputations that would otherwise be defamatory, and what role truth plays in the Ninth Exception. - HELD THAT: - The Court rejected any notion that journalists enjoy a special or higher privilege than other persons; their freedom is no greater, though responsibilities may make a conscientious journalist more careful. Truth alone does not automatically justify publication under the First Exception unless the publication is also for the public good; similarly, assertions of fact must be justified or the accused must establish the Ninth Exception by showing good faith and public good. Thus press assertions are subject to the same legal tests of defamation and exceptions as any other publication. [Paras 16, 17]No special privilege for journalists; truth does not by itself dispense with the requirement that publication be for the public good or made in good faith.Final Conclusion: The High Court's order quashing the prosecution was set aside and the matter remitted: the Magistrate is directed to record the plea of the accused under Section 251 CrPC and thereafter proceed with the trial; determinations as to good faith, public good and any applicability of the Ninth Exception are questions of fact to be decided at trial. 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.