Karavali Ale Editor defamation: Mangaluru court upholds conviction of accused

A sessions court in Mangaluru recently upheld the conviction of both the editor Sudesh Kumar and the owner Gangadhar Piliyur of the Kannada evening daily Karavali Marutha for defaming the editor of Karavali Ale, another Kannada evening daily [Sudesh Kumar and Anr. vs BC Seetharam].Additional District and Sessions Judge Mallikarjuna Swamy HS observed that both the accused were not able to substantiate that they had ascertained facts before making imputations against BC Seetharam, the editor of Karavali Ale. ."Accused No.1 and 3 not able to substantiate even to the slightest extent that they had taken due care of ascertaining the facts before making the imputation. There cannot be good faith where there is an express malice or evidence of culpable negligence or recklessness in the defamatory statements," the Court said in its order..The Court was hearing an appeal by the two accused who had been convicted and sentenced to a year in prison under Sections 500 (Punishment for defamation), 501 (Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory), and 502 (Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by a Magistrate's court..Their claim was that the irregularity committed by them was for public good and was made in good faith. Hence, they contended that the instances of defamation were covered under the first and ninth exceptions as provided under section 499 of IPC..On the other hand, Seetharam claimed that the accused's intention was to print and circulate false, defamatory, and scandalous allegations about the complainant in order to damage his reputation, social standing, and credibility as a journalist..The Court noted that to claim that the imputations were made in good faith, it was necessary for the accused to demonstrate that they had taken due care to ascertain facts. ."For bringing the act of making imputations in good faith, it is necessary that the person making the imputations shows that he had taken due care of ascertaining the facts before making the imputations. If no due and necessary enquiry was made about the truthfulness of the imputation, one must hold that no due care was exercised and if due care was not exercised, then the act must be considered as not done in good faith," the Court stated..The Court took note of the fact that the accused claimed to have documents to substantiate their claims but did not produce them. Accordingly, as provided under section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court presumed that the withheld evidence would be unfavourable to the accused. Accordingly, the Court drew the adverse inference that the accused were not in possession of documents while making the imputations and dismissed their appeal. .The accused were represented by advocate Mayura Keerthi while the complainant was represented by advocate GKPJ..[Read Judgment]