K.P.S.SANDHU, J. - (1.)SUSHIL Kumar Jain petitioner is Editor while Avinash Singla petitioner is the assistant Editor of a local weekly newspaper known as 'Nabha Dee Pukar.\' In its issue dated 13th August, 1979, the following news was Published: - "The Officials of the Markfed did corruption at the Chaki of a Municipal Commissioner, the recent example of which was the recovery of 125 quintals of wheat bags by Sukhdev Singh S.I. on 7.8.79 at 4.30 PM of the value of Rs. 17,760/ -regarding which a case under sections 409, 420, 379/120 -B,IPC was registered against the said officials......." Joginder Singh respondent filed a complaint under section 500, Indian Penal Code. After examining the preliminary evidence the petitioners and their co -accused wee summoned by the Magistrate and the learned Magistrate proceeded to record evidence recorded no case against the petitioner and their co -accused had been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant their conviction. Consequently, he discharged them under section 245, Criminal Procedure Code. Joginder Singh went in revision before the learned Additional SEssions Judge, Patiala who vide his order dated 16th December, 1982, allowed the revision and ordered that the petitioners should be charged for an offence Punishable under section 500, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala have come up to this Court.
(2.)THE learned Magistrate discharged the petitioner and their co -accused mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that from the evidence it could not be established that the news item related to complainant Joginder Singh and secondly, he came to a finding that the case was covered by exception 9 of Section 499, Indian Penal Code, which reads as under: - "Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. Ninth Exception. - Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or others' interest: - It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of an -other, provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person; or for the public good......"
(3.)I have heard Mr. R.K. Garg, counsel for the petitioners. I am of the opinion that the leaned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly upset both the findings of the leaned trial Magistrate. Although the respondent has not been specifically named in the news item but the description that a municipal commissioner having a flour mill is sufficient to fix the identity of the respondent -complainant as it is in evidence that he is the only municipal commissioner owning a flour mill. As far as exception 9 of Section 499, Indian Penal Code is concerned, this plea of exception has to be taken up by the petitioners themselves and the onus would be on them to prove good faith. It was wrong on the part of the Magistrate to come to a finding that the case was covered by exception 9 of Section 499, Indian Penal Code. Consequently, I find no infirmity or illegality in the order of the leaned Additional Sessions Judge and the conclusions reached at by him to my mind are reasonably correct.
In the result, this revision fails, being without merit.