Calling Someone Natakbaaz And Gunda Is Per Se Defamatory | Himachal Pradesh HC Convicts Newspaper Chief Editor For Defamation | Good Faith Defence Fails Without Reasonable Inquiry
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla has set aside the acquittal of a newspaper publisher and convicted him for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The court held that the publication of a news item referring to an individual as "Gunda" and "Natakbaaj" constitutes a defamatory imputation capable of lowering the person's reputation in the eyes of the public. It was recorded that "calling a person a gunda is per se defamatory". The Bench also held that republication of defamatory content constitutes a fresh offence in law, and the defence of good faith must be established by evidence.
While the acquittal of the co-accused was upheld due to lack of proof regarding his authorship or issuance of the alleged press note, the trial court’s reasoning for acquitting the publisher was found to be contrary to the applicable legal standards. The publisher’s failure to prove the authenticity of the press note and absence of inquiry into its content undermined his plea of good faith. The matter has now been remanded to the trial court for hearing on the quantum of sentence.
A complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paonta Sahib, under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that a defamatory news item was published in the Him Ujala newspaper. The complainant contended that the article described him using terms such as "Natakbaaj" and "Gunda", which had the effect of lowering his reputation in public. It was further alleged that Ramesh Kumar, the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Gorkhuwala (accused No.1), had hostile relations with the complainant and was instrumental in orchestrating the defamatory publication.
According to the complaint, villagers had accused Ramesh Kumar of embezzlement, following which government authorities sought recovery. Believing the complainant to be the instigator, Ramesh Kumar allegedly harboured enmity and made threats of false implication. Subsequently, the complainant lodged a police complaint on 16 February 2002. It was also asserted that accused No.1 was instrumental in implicating the complainant and his family in a false case under Section 498-A IPC.
The publication, dated 13 June 2004, reportedly contained statements comparing the complainant and his associates to "Shallow Drama Troupe" and accused them of spreading "Gundaraj". The news article also likened their condition to that of an injured snake. The complainant submitted that the publication, issued by Vijay Gupta (accused No.2), damaged his social reputation.
On recording preliminary evidence, the trial court summoned both accused. The complainant appeared as CW1 and examined Jagir Singh (CW2), Vipin Kumar (CW3), and Om Prakash (CW4). Accused No.1 admitted that the complainant was a resident of the area and that there was discord between them. He acknowledged that complaints had been made against him and that he was a prosecution witness in a 498-A IPC case. However, he denied authoring or directing the impugned news item and contended that he had only issued an explanation regarding a prior article.
Vijay Gupta (accused No.2), the publisher of Him Ujala, stated that the news item was based on a press note and affidavit given by Ramesh Kumar. He claimed to have published it in the public interest without adding or altering the content. The original of the alleged affidavit or press note was never produced, and only a photocopy (Mark-D1) was brought on record. No secondary evidence application was filed.
In defence, Ramesh Kumar appeared as DW1, along with DW2 Trilochan Singh, DW3 Ravinder Kumar (a notary), and DW4 Vijay Gupta. Ravinder Kumar was unable to confirm whether the affidavit was attested by him, especially in the absence of the original. He admitted that the register did not show any attestation entry for 17 June 2004.
The trial court acquitted both accused, holding that the affidavit and press note were not proved in accordance with law, and that no motive on the part of Vijay Gupta was established. It found that Ramesh Kumar’s authorship of the defamatory material was not conclusively established and that Vijay Gupta had acted in good faith.
Aggrieved by the acquittal, the complainant filed an appeal before the High Court. It was submitted that the trial court erred in holding that Vijay Gupta acted bona fide. The complainant contended that the language used in the news item was clearly defamatory and damaging to his reputation.
The High Court scrutinised the trial court's judgment and held that the appellate court may interfere with an acquittal where the finding is “patently perverse, is based on misreading of evidence, omission to consider the material evidence and no reasonable person could have recorded the acquittal.” Referring to the decision in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, the court observed that it may reverse an acquittal if “no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.”
The court translated the impugned news item and found that it directly referred to the complainant and others as persons involved in a 498-A IPC case. It recorded: “Ramesh Kumar called the group of people making the allegation as ‘Shallow Drama Troupe’… spreading Gundaraj.” The Bench observed that these terms were clearly intended to lower the reputation of the complainant.
Citing decisions from Kerala, Orissa, Rajasthan, and other High Courts, the Bench held that referring to a person as a "Gunda" is per se defamatory. It referred to Gopinathan v. Ramakrishnan, where it was held: “The mention in Ext. P3 that the complainant was maintaining behaviour of a street gunda is also per se defamatory.”
The High Court noted that the defence of Vijay Gupta that the news item was based on a press note and affidavit of Ramesh Kumar could not be accepted since the document was never proved in court. It stated: “There was no other evidence to prove that the press note/affidavit was issued by the accused No.1.”
Further, the court rejected the defence plea that republication of a third-party's statement protects the publisher. It relied on Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, observing: “Every republication of a libel is a new libel, and each publisher is answerable for his act.”
The Bench dismissed the claim of good faith by accused No.2, stating: “There is no evidence on record that the complainant is a member of the theatre group, had ever breached the public peace, or he had spread Gundaraj.” Citing Chellappan Pillai v. Karanjia, the court held: “It is sufficient if the accused intended or knew or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the complainant.”
The Bench also clarified that the status of Vijay Gupta as Chief Editor did not exempt him from liability, especially when he admitted to having published the news item. It observed: “Recourse cannot be had to the presumption contained in the Press and Registration Act.”
The court allowed the criminal appeal in part. It recorded: “The judgment acquitting accused No.2 of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC is set aside, and he is convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC.”
The acquittal of accused No.1 was upheld as the court held: “There was insufficient evidence that this news item containing the defamatory words was published at the instance of accused No.1 because the present note/affidavit was not proved as per the law, and its original was never produced before the Court.”
The court directed: “Let the accused No. 2 be produced before the Court for hearing him on the quantum of sentence on 24th July, 2025.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Basant Pal Thakur, Advocate
Case Title: Gopal Chand v. Ramesh Kumar and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:21079
Case Number: Cr. Appeal No. 139 of 2011
Bench: Justice Rakesh Kainthla
