IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 AS.No. 539 of 1999() -------------------- OS.195/1993 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFF: ------------------- K.V. BALAN, S./O. KUNJAMBU MASTER, SANTHINAGAR COLONY, NELLIKODE AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENT/DEFENDANTS: ------------------- 1. THE EDITOR, KERALA KOUMUDI DAILY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRINTER AND PUBLSHER, KERALA KOUMUDI DAILY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MANAGING DIRECTOR, -DO- -do- 4. RESIDENT EDITOR, KERALA KOUMUDI DAILY, CALICUT EDITION, THONDAYADU, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN FOR R1,R2,R4 SRI.P.M.PADMANABHAN FOR R1,R2,R4 THIS APPEAL SUIT HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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