IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AS.No. 539 of 1999()
1. K.V.BALAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA KAUMUDHI DAILY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS
For Respondent :SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :24/05/2010
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.
---------------------------
A.S.NO.539 OF 1999
---------------------------
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 2010
JUDGMENT
Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.195/93 on
the file of the Sub Court, Kozhikode. The suit was filed for
realisation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for the publication
of defamatory statement by the defendants. The trial court
dismissed the suit. Hence, the appeal. The parties hereinafter
referred are the plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in the suit.
2. The plaintiff is a Circle Inspector of Police.
The defendants are the Editor, Printer and Publisher, Managing
Director and Resident Editor of the Kerala Kaumudi Daily
newspaper. It is alleged that on 9/3/1992 the defendants
published a news item with the malicious intention of defaming
the plaintiff at the instigation of some interested persons. It is the
plaintiff’s case that the publication is defamatory. Ext.A1 is the
said publication. According to the plaintiff, the caption was
-2-
A.S.539/1999
intended to attract public attention and to humiliate the plaintiff,
that the news item was not a fair comment and published without
any investigation by the reporter, that the plaintiff and the injured
Subadra were neighbours and even if any quarrel developed
between the neighbours, it was only an ordinary and common
incident, which does not involve any public interest and
therefore the alleged caption was unwarranted and defamatory to
the plaintiff. The defendants contended that the report was
gospel truth, that the news item does not assert about the truth or
otherwise of the alleged incident and that it was based on a
complaint made by the husband of the injured. The trial court
held that on a careful reading of the report would show that the
newspaper does not say about the truth of the incident and what
is stated is “nurse was injured due to the incident.” The definite
case of the defendants is that they were only reporting a fact
which was true and after convincing that such an incident had
taken place. It has come out in evidence that the injured Subadra
-3-
A.S.539/1999
had lodged a complaint to the police against the present plaintiff
and his wife. On an examination of the facts, evidence and
circumstances, the trial court concluded that the evidence
adduced by the defendants shows that the report was based on
true facts. The defendants are printers, publishers and the
resident reporter of the newspaper having wide circulation in
most parts of the State and therefore the newspaper has a moral
duty to report true facts concerning illegal acts in which number
of public men are involved. Such a report which is based on true
facts cannot be considered as one intended to defame that person.
I have also examined the oral evidence of Pws. 1 to 3 and the
documentary evidence, Exts.A1 to A4(a) and B1 to B4 adduced
by the parties. On an appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, the trial court held that the plaintiff has not succeeded
in proving any malicious intention on the part of the defendants
and that Ext.A1 report was not a defamatory one and the same
was published based on true facts. I find that no valid grounds
-4-
A.S.539/1999
are made out by the appellant to interfere with the findings
recorded by the court below.
In the result, the appeal fails and the accordingly
dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
HARUN-UL-RASHID,
JUDGE.
kcv