Publishing Allegations Against Police Officer Not Supported By Public Complaints Amounts To Defamation: Karnataka High Court
The High Court held that the respondent failed to establish that the defamatory statements published against the complainant fell within any exception under Section 499 IPC, and that the publication of unverified allegations amounted to defamation.
Justice S Rachaiah, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court, while convicting a newspaper editor for offences under Sections 500 and 501 of the IPC, held that publishing allegations against a police officer without producing any supporting public complaints or material amounts to defamation
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court in a private complaint filed under Sections 499, 500, and 501 IPC.
A Bench comprising Justice S Rachaiah set aside the acquittal, while holding that the articles published in the respondent’s newspaper contained defamatory allegations, observed that “when such allegations are made against an officer and failed to prove any one of such allegations by producing any complaints by the public, amounts to defamation”.
Advocate Chetan B appeared for the appellant, and Advocate Shankarappa appeared for the respondent.
Background
The complainant, a police officer, alleged that the respondent had published articles implying that he was involved in accepting illegal payments, facilitating unauthorised activities, and permitting offences such as gambling and the sale of adulterated goods within his jurisdiction.
He contended that these allegations were false, had damaged his reputation among colleagues and the public, and had caused him distress.
The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding that the complainant had not produced any witness to show that his reputation had been lowered. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the complainant filed the present appeal.
Court’s Observation
The Karnataka High Court examined the articles and found that the publications contained explicit statements alleging misconduct by the complainant. The Court noted that the respondent had admitted to publishing the material.
The Court held that once publication of an imputation is proved, the burden shifts to the accused to establish that the publication falls within one of the exceptions to Section 499 IPC. The Court observed that the respondent had produced no documents, complaints, or evidence to substantiate the allegations made in the articles.
Referring to the statutory framework, the Court noted that the publication contained assertions regarding the complainant permitting unlawful activities and accepting illegal payments. It held that the respondent had not shown that the publication was made for the public good or that it was based on any verified information.
The Bench accordingly concluded that the imputations harmed the reputation of the complainant and fell squarely within the definition of defamation under Section 499 IPC, and that the respondent had failed to bring the publication within any statutory exception.
Conclusion
Holding that the trial court had misapplied the law and incorrectly assessed the evidence, the High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted the respondent under Sections 500 and 501 IPC.
The Court imposed a sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment for each offence and a fine of Rs. 2,000 for each count, with a default sentence of one month’s simple imprisonment. Both substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Cause Title: S.N. Suresh Babu v. T. Gururaj (Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:45163)
Appearances
Appellant: Advocates Chetan B and Syed Amjad
Respondent: Advocate Shankarappa