Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice S Rachaiah convicted the editor of a local newspaper for publishing articles that the Court found to be defamatory towards a police officer serving as a Circle Inspector at K.R. Police Station, Mysuru. The Court held that the published imputations, which accused the officer of permitting unlawful activities and accepting illicit payments, were unsupported by any proof or public complaints and therefore constituted defamation. Emphasizing that unverified accusations directed at a public officer can harm reputation, the Court concluded that the essential elements of criminal defamation were satisfied. In consequence, the earlier acquittal was set aside and the editor was sentenced for offences under Sections 500 and 501 of the IPC.

The case concerns a series of newspaper articles published by an editor, in which statements were made alleging that illegal activities such as single-number lottery operations, unauthorised parking arrangements near Chamundi Hill, and other unlawful practices were occurring within a particular police jurisdiction. The publications suggested that these activities were carried out with the involvement or knowledge of the officer posted in that area. The articles were relied upon as the basis of the complaint.

Also Read: Supreme Court Dismisses Tenant’s Appeal In Wilful Default Eviction Case; “mere filing of an appeal does not by itself operate as a stay” As No Stay Was Obtained Against Fair Rent Order

During the trial, the complainant entered the witness box and three additional witnesses were examined. Several documents, including copies of the publications, were produced as Exhibits P1 to P7. The evidence included extracts from the newspaper that attributed specific misconduct to the officer. The complainant disputed each allegation and stated that no departmental authority had ever issued any adverse remarks against him during the period referred to.

The editor maintained that the material published was intended to draw attention to matters of public concern. He argued that the statements were covered by the recognised exceptions to criminal defamation, particularly those relating to public good and commentary on the conduct of public servants. The Court reviewed Sections 499, 500, and 501 of the IPC, along with the explanations and exceptions, while examining whether the imputations met the statutory requirements for criminal defamation.

The Court recorded that Section 499 IPC defines defamation as an imputation “intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person.” The Court reproduced the explanations and exceptions in full and stated that these provisions govern whether a publication constitutes defamation.

Regarding the evidence, the Court observed: “the appellant was receiving bribe and allowing the persons to play single number lottery. Further, it is published that, the appellant was receiving the amount illegally from the parking agents”. It recorded that the publications also alleged that the appellant “was allowing to run a club to play the playing cards, allowing to run prostitution and also sell the adulterated kerosene and play the single number lottery etc.”

The Court stated that once a publication is shown to be defamatory, “the burden would be shifted to the person in whose publications such statements are published to prove that it was published in the interest of the public.”

It recorded that no material had been produced by the respondent to demonstrate truth or public-interest justification for the allegations: “failed to prove any one of such allegations by producing any complaints by the public, amounts to defamation.”

The Court further stated that “the respondent has published the words or statements in his newspaper which cause or harm the reputation of the appellant. Making baseless allegations to defame the dignity of individual, certainly, would amount to defamation.”

The Court held that the Trial Court erred by requiring individual witnesses to confirm injury to reputation instead of examining the publication itself, stating that the approach of the Trial Court in insisting on individual reactions was “erroneous and untenable.”

Also Read: Income Tax Act: Interest On Mortgaged Loan To Company Is Not Deductible Against Salary Income; Karnataka High Court

The Court directed: “Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 30.09.2013 passed in C.C.No.1512/2007 on the file of JMFC-III, Mysuru, is hereby, set aside. The respondent is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-… in default, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month.”

“The respondent is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 501 of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-… in default, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month.” Finally, it directed that “The sentences shall run concurrently.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Sri. Chethan B., Advocate, and Sri. Syed Amjad, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri. Shankarappa, Advocate

Case Title: S.N. Suresh Babu v. T. Gururaj
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:45163
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1094 of 2013
Bench: Justice S. Rachaiah