CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

Dr. SHAKUNTALA MISRA NATIONAL REHABILITATION

UNIVERSITY

Lucknow
Faculty of Law

PROJECT ON

‘CRIMINAL DEFAMATION’

For

COURSE ON CRIME -II (INDIAN PENAL CODE )

CLASS: B.Com., LL.B (Hons.) 4th Semester

Submitted by

UTKARSH KUMAR YADAV

B Com LL.B/2016-17/18

Academic Session: 2017-18

Under the Supervision of

Dr. Gulab Rai

Asst. Prof. in Law
Faculty of Law
Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University

INDIAN PENAL CODE Page 1

 CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Dr.Gulab Rai who gave me the
golden opportunity to do this wonderful topic ‘CRIMINAL DEFAMATION’, which also helped me
in doing a lot of Research and I came to know about so many new things I am really thankful to them.

Utkarsh kumar yadav

INDIAN PENAL CODE Page 2

 CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

TABLE OF CONTENT

Sr. No Page No.

1. Introduction …………………………………………………… …..04

2. Section 499 section as fallows……………………………………...05

3. Scope ………………………………………………………………….……07

4. Section499 Is Not Violative of article 19 of constitution ………………...07

5. Ingredients of an offence under section 499…………………………….….08

6. Elaments of section 499………………………………………………..……09

6.1. By Spoken Words or By words that are Intended to Be read

Or By Signs or By Visible Reprentions ………………………..……09

6.2. Makes ……………………………………………………………….…09

6.3. Publishes…………………………………………………………….…09

6.4. Imputation ……………………………………………………………..11

6.5. Concerning any person ………………………………………………..11

6.6. Intending to Harm or knowing or having resons to Believe

That such Imputation will the Reputation of such person …………..12

6.7. Harm…………………………………………………………..………12

6.8. Reputation ………………………………………………………12

7. Exception of section 499……………………………………………………14

8. Bibliography………………………………………………………..………16

INDIAN PENAL CODE Page 3

 CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

1 INTRODUCTION

"A misapplied and misapprehended term is sufficient to give rise to a fierce and interminable
dispute. An artful watchword thrown among combustible materials has kindled the flame of
deadly warfare and changed the destiny of an empire." Richards. I.A.: Introduction to
1
Roger's Pocket Thesaurus.

As expressed by Richards, a misapplied and misapprehended term is sufficient to give rise to

a fierce and interminable dispute. An artful watchword thrown among combustible materials
has kindled the flame of deadly warfare and changed the destiny of an empire. Every person
has an inherent right to protect and preserve his reputation intact.2

It is a fundamental principle, long established that the freedom of speech and of the press
which is secured by the Constitution does not confer an absolute right to speak or publish,
without responsibility, whatever one may choose, or an unrestricted and 'unbridled license
that gives immunity for every possible use of language, and prevents the punishment of those
who abuse this freedom ... Reasonably limited, it was said by story in the passage cited, this
freedom is an inestimable privilege in a free government; without such limitation, it might
become a scourge of the republic.

Freedom of speech and expression under Art 19 (1) (a) cannot be taken to mean absolute
freedom to say or write whatever a person chooses recklessly and without .regard to any
person's honour and reputation. Indeed the right has its own natural limitation. Article 19(2)
in this behalf contains safeguards of reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right. Under
s 499, IPC, only such imputation as are malicious and reckless and not for public good,
tranquillity or peace or public security or as are not made in good faith, have been brought
within the definition of defamation which is but the abuse of the freedom of speech and
expression punishable under s 500, IPC. Therefore, the provisions of s 499 cannot be said to
place any unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech or expression. Hence, s 499, IPC,
is not violative of Art 19. The Constitution does not grant immunity from all punishments of
abuse of freedom of speech and the accused can be put to answer criminally for the breach of
reasonable restrictions on his 'freedom of speech or for his abuse of the freedom of speech.
Punishment is not a restriction in itself but is indeed a consequence of the breach of
restriction which the defaulter cannot escape.

Section 499 has a large number of Exceptions. They cover the entire field of privileges
available in cases of defamatory statements. In fact, these privileges represent the freedom of
speech and expression which is the foundation of all democratic institutions. However, while
considerable latitude is allowed in respect of these privileges, they are also subject to a large
number of conditions. Loss of life and loss of reputation are two things which cannot be

1 Gandhi B. M., Indian Penal Code, 2nd Ed. 2006, P-707.

2 Ibid. P-710.

INDIAN PENAL CODE Page 4

 CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

compensated in terms of money. Reputation especially is something which is a treasure to a

person. The provisions of these sections act as a deterrent against the commission of the
offence of defamation. However, due to restrictions imposed in s 199, CrPC 1973, it is the
aggrieved person and when he is incapable, a proper person on his behalf can set the criminal
law in motion against the person accused. This topic deals with the following four sections:

(a) Section 499- It defines the offence of defamation along with four explanations. The
section also has ten Exceptions to the offence of defamation.

(b) Section 500- The offence of defamation as defined under s 499 is punishable under this
section with simple imprisonment which may extend upto two years, or with fine, or with
both.

(c) Section 501- The offence under this section is distinct from an offence under s 500. 3
Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory is made punishable under this section
though the sentence prescribed is the same as prescribed in the preceding section.

(d) Section 502- The sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter is
made punishable under this section. The sentence prescribed is the same as in the preceding
two sections.

In English law the crime of private libel has the tendency to provoke breach of peace. Under
Indian Penal Code, however, defamation has been made an offence without any reference to
its tendency to cause acts of illegal violence. Mental suffering caused to the person defamed
is the gist of this offence. In English law a distinction has been maintained between libel and
slander, but under Indian law no such distinction has been recognised.4

2 Section 499: Section as follows

499. Defamation, - Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or, by sings 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 herein after excepted, to defame that
person.

Explanation 1 - It may amount of defamation to impute anything to a deceased

person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is
intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2 - It may amount to defamation to, make an imputation concerning a

company or an association or collection of persons as such.
3 Crown v Uma Shankar 18 PR 1889.
4 Mishra S. N., Indian Penal Code, 18th Ed. Repr. 2012, P-854.

INDIAN PENAL CODE Page 5

 CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

Explanation 3 - An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically,

may amount to defamation.

Explanation 4 - No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that

imputation, directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others lowers the moral or
intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect
of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be
believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally
considered as disgraceful.

First Exception- Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or

published.- It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it
be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is
for the public good is a question of fact.

Second Exception- Public conduct of public servants.- It is not defamation to express in

good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of
his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that
conduct, and no further.

Third Exception- Conduct of any person touching any public question.- It is not
defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any
person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character
appears in that conduct, and no further.

Fourth Exception- Publication of reports of proceedings of courts. - It is not defamation to

publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of a court of justice, or of the result of
any such ' proceedings. .

Explanation- A justice of the peace or other officer holding an enquiry in open court
preliminary to a trial in a court of justice, is a court within the meaning of the above
section.

Fifth Exception- Merits of case decided in court or conduct of witnesses and others
concerned.- It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the
merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a court of justice, or
respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or
respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no
further.

Sixth Exception- Merits of public performance.- It is not defamation to express in good

faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to
the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character
appears' in such performance, and' no further.

INDIAN PENAL CODE Page 6

 CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

Explanation- A performance may be submitted to the judgment of the public

expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the
judgment of the public.

Seventh Exception- Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority 'over
another.- It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred
by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any
censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates.

Eighth Exception- Accusation preferred in good faith to authorized person.- It is not

defamation, to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have
lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.

Ninth Exception- Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or
other's interests.- It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another
provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the
person making it, or of any other; person, or for the public good.

Tenth Exception- Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public
good.- It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another
provided that such caution be intended for the' good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or
of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.

3 SCOPE
This section defines the offence of defamation with the aid of four Explanations and ten
Exceptions with more Explanations and illustrations appended to the Exceptions. 5 The
authors of this Code observed that the essence of the offence of defamation consists in its
tendency to cause that description of pain, which is fell by a person who knows himself to be
the object of the unfavourable sentiments of his fellow-creatures, and those inconveniences to
which a person, who is the object of such unfavourable sentiments, is exposed.

The criminal law of India with regard to defamation depends on the construction of this
section, and not on what is the English law on the subject 8 Whether the publication of
defamatory words or uttering defamatory words, heard and listened to by people takes place
in a proceeding in a court room or outside the court precincts does not matter as long as the
defamatory words are intended to harm the reputation of another.6

4 SECTION 499 IS NOT VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION

Under s 499, IPC, only such imputations as are malicious and reckless and not for public
good, tranquillity or peace or public security or as are not made in good faith, have been
brought-within the definition of defamation which is but the abuse of freedom of speech and

5 NCERT v PD Bhatnagar 1980 Raj Cr Cas 392, 396, 1981Cr LJ(NOC) 57 (Raj).
6 Praninchand Jaggiuandas Gandhi v Ibrahim Mohammed Merchant 1987 Cr LJ 1795 (Bom).

INDIAN PENAL CODE Page 7

 CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

expression punishable under s 500, IPC.7 Therefore, the provisions of s 499 cannot be said to
place any unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech or expression. Hence, s 499, IPC,
is not violative of Art 19 of the Constitution of India.

5 INGREDIENTS OF AN OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 499

The offence of defamation consists of three essential ingredients8:

(a) There must be a making or publishing of an imputation concerning a person;

(b) Such imputation must have been made by words, either spoken or intended to be read, or
by signs or by visible representations; and

(c) The said imputation must have been made with the intention to harm, or with knowledge
or reasonable belief that it will harm, the reputation of the person concerned.

The first and foremost question, which a court dealing with a criminal prosecution, involving
the offence of defamation must, therefore, answer, is whether the alleged material, described
as defamatory, amounts to imputation within the meaning of this expression as used in s 499.
Imputation ordinarily implies an accusation. Imputation or accusation, alone will, however,
not suffice. To constitute the offence of defamation, the prosecutor will have to prove that the
imputation or accusation was made with an intention or knowledge or belief as mentioned in
ingredient (c) above A person is not guilty of defamation by making the imputation or
accusation unless he intends to harm, or he knows or has reason to believe that thereby he
would harm, the reputation of another person. In other words, an: imputation or accusation
simpliciter without proof of the requisite intention, knowledge or belief, as covered by
ingredient (c) of the definition, will not constitute the offence of defamation.

The question whether an imputation or accusation is defamatory or not is a mixed question of

law and fact. If there is a controversy as to whether the material, complained of, is
defamatory or not, the court will first have to decide, as a question of law, as to whether the
said material is capable of being understood in a defamatory sense. If the court decides this
question in the affirmative, it will then, and only, proceed to determine whether the said
material, containing a defamatory potential, had, in fact, harmed the reputation of the
complaint within the ambit of the definition of such harm as given in Explanation. If the
material is defamatory per se, for example, where the accused imputed commission of a
felonious crime to the complainant, there is no difficulty in deciding the question of law
mentioned above. The court will, at once, answer it by saying that the imputation of
commission of felony by the accused is capable of being understood in no other but a
defamatory sense. In such a situation, the court will be justified taking the parties to evidence
with a view to determine; as a question of fact, whether the said imputation had harmed the

7KV Ramaniah v Special Public Prosecutor AIR 1961 Andhra Pradesh 190 (DB), 1961 (1) Cr LJ 601.
8Sunlakhya Chowdhury v HM Jadwet AIR 1968 Cal 266, 271, 1968 Cr LJ 736; Prem Pal Singh v Mohan Lal
1981 Cr LJ 1208, 1211 (Himachal Pradesh); NCERT v PD Bhatnagar 1980 Raj Cr Cas 392, 397, 1981 Cr LJ
(NOC) 57 (Raj).

INDIAN PENAL CODE Page 8

 CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

reputation of the complainant within the four corners of Explanation 4. If, on the other hand,
the words of the alleged imputation are ambiguous, it becomes a question of some difficulty
for the court to decide whether those words are capable of being understood in a defamatory
sense. If the court decides, in the context of a particular complaint, that the words, in
question, are reasonably capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, it is only thereafter that it
will address itself to the question of fact regarding harm to the reputation of the complainant.

6 ELEMENTS OF SECTION 499

1) ‘BY SPOKEN WORDS OR BY WORDS THAT ARE INTENDED TO BE READ, OR BY SIGNS OR
BY VISIBLE REPRESENTATIONS’
In India a person can be defamed not only by writings, he can also be defamed by spoken
words. Here at this point Indian law of defamation differs from English law of defamation.
Under English law only writing, printing, engraving, or some other process only can
constitute defamation. Spoken words never constitute defamation. Under that law spoken
words furnish ground for a civil action. In the Indian Penal Code the words furnish ground
for a civil action. In the Indian Penal Code the word defamation has been used to denote what
is known as libel and slander under English law. The words 'visible representation' will
include every possible form of defamation which ingenuity can devise. Thus a statute, a
caricature, an effigy, chalk marks on a wall, signs or pictures may constitute a libel, 9 in
addition to words spoken. The publication of a group photograph with a false caption
"goonda"10 would be defamatory.

2) ‘MAKES’
Every such person who is engaged in composing, dictating, writing or in any way
contributing to the making of a libel is the maker of the libel. Where the matter is dictated by
one person and written down by another person, both shall be guilty of this offence. Similarly
if one person speaks, another writes and third approves of it, all the three shall be guilty. The
reason is that all who concur and assent to the doing of an unlawful act will be guilty of this
offence.

3) ‘PUBLISHES’
The word 'publishes' means to make known to others. As observed by Calcutta High Court,11
the words "makes or publishes" supplements each other. For the offence of defamation
publication of defamatory matter is essential. In other words the defamatory matter must be
communicated to some person other than the person to whom it concerns e.g. dictating a
letter to a clerk is publication. Communication by one person to another is the crux of
publication12, but communication to the person to be defamed only is no publication.13

9 Momon v, Tussands Ltd., (1894) 1 Q.B.D. 671.

10 C. Piilai v. Kamnji«, (1962) 2 Cri. L.J. 142
11 Sunllakhya Chowdhury v. H.M. Jadwet, AIR 1968 Ca1266: 1968 Cri W 736.
12 Amar Singb v. Badaiia, (1965) 2 Cri U 693.

INDIAN PENAL CODE Page 9

 CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

Publication of a defamatory matter can be made by a post card, telegram, printed papers or
leaflets, newspapers, Journals and by broadcasting on radio or television. Talkies and cinema
films or even gramophones were unknown when this Code was enacted but the word
“publication” covers them all. Defamatory matter, if written on a postcard, or printed on a
paper will constitute publication when it is distributed or broadcasted.

It may be stated here that the word 'publishes' in s 499, IPC, does not contemplate that the
communications, which one is bound to make to others in the normal course of his legal
duties, should fall within the ambit of this section, otherwise every officer, clerk and
superintendent and everybody, who has to deal with a document and pass it on to others,
would be taken to publish the same. No publication can be said to have taken place for the
counsel to give the contents of a written statement to his own client or to his own clerk in the
ordinary discharge of his duties as a lawyer or to handover the envelope, containing the
written statements, to a clerk of another counsel.

Publication of defamatory matter in newspaper.-A newspaper stands, in matters of

defamation, in the same position, as members of the public in general. The publisher of the
newspaper shall be responsible for published defamatory matter whether he was aware of that
or not," But an editor's position is somewhat different. He can escape his liability by proving
that defamatory matter was published in his absence and without his knowledge and he had in
good faith entrusted the temporary management of the newspaper during his absence to a
competent person.' The owner of the paper or journal, however as a qua owner has no
responsibility. The publication of a notice in a newspaper conveying an imputation that the
complainant is dishonest in the management of the affairs of the company and thus to conceal
the dishonesty by methods that are themselves dishonest is defamation.

In Asok Kumar Jain and others v. State of Maharashtra, 14 it was held that where a
defamatory statement against a person is published in a newspaper, the editor, printer and
publisher who has made declaration and is shown in paper as such is liable. Where it is
alleged that the Chairman of Board of Directors of Company and its General Manager took
part in selling out newspaper, it is indicative of the fact that they had prior knowledge of
defamatory matter in paper which they could have prevented but they did not, they would be
guilty of the offence and cannot escape liability under Section 502 unless they can make out a
case of exception under Section 499.

13 Bhuliram, (1962) 2 Cri U 760; See also Kundanmal, (1943) 45 Cri LJ 105: S.S. Sanyal v. K V.R. Nair, 1987
Cri U 2074 (Cal).
14 1986 Cri. L.J. 1987 (Born).

INDIAN PENAL CODE Page 10

 CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

4) ‘IMPUTATION’
An imputation ordinarily implies an accusation or something more the expression of a
suspicion. To impute is to lay the blame upon a person or to charge him or to allege against
him something which brings him into disrepute. It connotes an accusation. The accusation
must be something more than creating or expressing suspicion. The following imputations, as
observed in various cases, are held to be defamatory:
i) to call a person a drunkard, or a black marketeer, or an illegitimate person;
ii) to call a trader as an insolvent;
iii) to call a woman as a woman of loose character, or that she has a paramour and
iv) to express imputation against the deceased.
Such imputations may be expressed in various ways, as by way of exclamation, by way of
question, by way of irony or by conjecture.
It would be defamatory to characterise a person as 'goonda', or to allege that the complainant
sings indecent songs in the public, or is a drunkard and abuses girls and women and is a
goonda" or to describe a person in the heading of a defamatory pamphlet as 'sharif badmash',
or to say that Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose was a traitor,15 or to call a person 'worthless' and '
despicable blackguard'.16
The following imputations, as observed in various cases, are held to be defamatory:

 Imputation regarding insolvency.

 Imputation regarding trade or business
 Imputation regarding profession
 Imputation regarding criminal offence
 Imputation against chastity
 Imputation against caste
 Vulgar abuses

5) 'CONCERNING ANY PERSON'

This phrase must mean any person whose identity can be established. Imputation concerning
any person may be conveyed obliquely or indirectly, or by way of question, conjecture,
exclamation or by irony. He may be a single individual or a group where, therefore, the
identity could not be established so it was held in Government Advocate, B&O v. Gopa
Bandhu Das, that the accused could not be convicted.
In Asha Parekh v. State of Bihar17, a film was alleged to be defamatory of lawyers as a class.
A criminal case was filed against the producers, its artists and Chairman of the Central Board
of Censors. The court held that it is necessary in such a case to show that the class of persons
is so small that its identity could be established. It is not so in this case and since advocates as
a class could not be defamed, the accused is not guilty under this Section.
A newspaper is not a person. Consequently it cannot be defamed.

15 Pat Sharpe v. Dwi;endra Nath Bose (1964) 1 CX LJ 867, 68 CWN 654.

16 Raja Ram Singh v. Emperor 19 Cr LJ 669.
17 1977Cri LJ 21 (Pat).

INDIAN PENAL CODE Page 11

 CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

6) 'INTENDING TO HARM, OR KNOWING OR HAVING REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT SUCH

IMPUTATION WILL HARM, THE REPUTATION OF SUCH PERSON'
The essence of the offence of defamation is that the imputation must have been made either
with the intention of causing harm, or with the knowledge or belief that the imputation would
cause harm, to the reputation of the person defamed.
The test to determine whether any statement is defamatory or not is whether under the
circumstances in which writing was published; a person of reasonable prudence to whom
publication was made would be likely to understand it in a libellous sense. The intention of
the accused to harm the complainant is to be proved here. Imputations on a man's character
lowers him in the eyes of others and this is harm; but anything which lowers a man in his
own estimation is no harm, and therefore, it is no defamation.

a) Proof of Actual Harm to Complainant- Not Necessary

To sustain a charge of defamation, it is not necessary to prove that the complainant
actually suffered directly or indirectly from the scandalous imputation alleged; it is
sufficient to show that the accused intended that the imputation should harm, or that
he knew or had reason to believe that imputation made by him would harm the
reputation of the complainant.

b) Intention or Knowledge
In judging whether the accused had the requisite intention or knowledge, the
circumstances under which, and the main object with which, the defamatory
statements were made, and the background of the dispute between the parties should
all be considered. Where the tenor of a document shows that the publication tends to
harm the reputation of a person, the court would be justified in gathering from the
terms of the matter itself that the publishers intended to harm, or they knew or had
reason to believe that the imputation would harm his reputation.

7) 'HARM'
Harm means harm or injury to reputation of the complainant. 18 ‘Harm' has to be the
reputation itself of the person defamed.19 Words which do not disparage a man's reputation
but occasion a pecuniary loss to him do not amount to defamation.

8) 'REPUTATION'
Reputation is a jus in rem, a right absolute and against the entire world. A man's reputation is
his property. Hence, nobody can so use his freedom of speech or expression as to injure
another's reputation.

18 Yeeda Menezes v. Yusuf Khan Haji Ibrahim Khan, AIR 1966 SC 1773: 1966 Supp SCR 123.
19 Amar Singh v KS Badalia (1965) 2 Cr LJ 693, 697

INDIAN PENAL CODE Page 12

 CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

Reputation is what others believe about the complainant. Complainant's own estimation about
himself is no reputation. Consequently, communication of defamatory matter to the
complainant is no publication.

EXPLANATION 1
It is regarding imputation against a dead person. If the imputation would harm the reputation
of that person if living and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near
relatives, it is defamation.

This explanation will come into operation when:

(a) the imputation would have hurt the deceased's reputation, and
(b) it would also have hurt the feeling of his family and relatives.

In Luckumsey Ronji v. Hurbans Nursy,20 a suit was brought by the heir and nearest relation of
deceased person for defamatory words spoken of such deceased person but alleged to have
caused damage to the plaintiff as a member of the same family; it was held that the suit was
not maintainable.

EXPLANATION 2
An action for libel will lie at the suit of an incorporated trading company in respect of a
defamation calculated to injure its reputation in the way of its business. A corporation has no
reputation apart from its property or trade. It cannot maintain an action for a defamation
merely affecting personal reputation. This explanation covers any collection of persons but
such collection of persons must be identifiable in the sense that one could with certainty say
that this group of particular people has been defamed as distinguished from the rest of the
community.

In M.P. Narayana Pillai and others v. M.P. Chako and another, 21 it was held that
imputations against an association or collection of persons can be defamatory only if such
persons are definite and determinable body. Only if there is a definite association or
collection of persons capable of being identified, it could be said that the imputation against it
affects all of them and any member of the class can say that the imputation is against him also
personally so as to entitle him to file a complaint for defamation. There cannot be defamation
against a community as such.

20 (1881) 5 Born. 580.

21 1986 Cri. L.J. 2002 (Kcrala),

INDIAN PENAL CODE Page 13

 CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

EXPLANATION 3
A statement innocent in form or in the form of an alternative will amount to defamation if it
is ironical. In R. Shanker v. State,22 in an article in department with his own underlings, the
minister had made the appointment of a particular person and that this was but the prelude to
further appointments of the like nature, it was held that the caption. 'So prospers the incorrupt
administration of Minister Krishna Iyer' was obviously an ironical statement implying that
the Minister's administration was a bad administration riddled with corruption and nepotism.

EXPLANATION 4
According to Explanation 4 an imputation which directly or indirectly, in the estimation of
others, lowers the moral23 or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of
that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or
causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state
generally considered as disgraceful, the imputation is defamatory. Thus describing a woman
that she has paramours wherever she goes was held as per se defamatory in J. Chellihl v.
Rajeswari.

7 EXCEPTION TO SECTION 499

This section has got a large number of exceptions. They cover the entire field of the
privileges available in cases of defamatory statements. In fact, these privileges represent the
freedom of speech and expression which is the foundation of all democratic institutions.

The exceptions attached to the section declare that whenever a case falls within any of the
exceptions, it would not be defamation. These exceptions are ten in number but they can well
be condensed into seven. They constitute the privileged occasions which exempt a person
from criminal liability for defamation. They may be summarised as follows:

As expressed in Balraj Khanna v. Moti Ram, the question of applicability of the exceptions in
Section 499 cannot be considered at the time of entertaining the complaint to determine if a
prima facie case is made out under Section 202 CrPC. It is only at the trial that the question
of applicability of any of the exceptions in Section 499 or, as well as other defences can be
considered.

1) Imputation for public good: It is not defamation to impute anything which is true
concerning any person if it is for the public good that the imputation should be made or
published-(Exception 1).
2) Expression of opinion in good faith: It is not defamation to express in good faith any
opinion respecting-
i) the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions (Exception
2),
ii) or the conduct of any person touching any public question (Exception 3), or

22 1959 Cr LJ 464, AIR 1959 Ker 100.

23 J. Chelliall v. Rajeswari, 1969 Cri L.J 571.

INDIAN PENAL CODE Page 14

 CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

iii) the conduct of a party, witness or agent in a civil or criminal case decided by a
court (Exception 5), or
iv) the character or merits of a public servant or any person or a party, witness or
agent in a civil or criminal case decided by a court so far as his character appears
in that conduct and no further (Exception 5) or,
v) the conduct of the author of any performance which he has submitted to the
judgment of the public, so far as his character appears in such performance and no
further (Exception 6).

3) Publication of reports of court proceedings: It is not defamation to publish a

substantially true report of the proceedings or result of the proceedings of a court
including a justice of the peace or other officer holding an inquiry in open court
preliminary to a trial in a court (Exception 4).

4) Censure passed in good faith: It is not defamation to pass in good faith any censure on
the conduct of a person by another having authority over him,
i) conferred by law, or
ii) arising out of lawful contract made with him, or
iii) in matters to which such lawful authority relates (Exception 7).

5) Accusation preferred in good faith: It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an

accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that
person with respect to the subject-matter of the accusation (Exception 8).

6) Imputation made in good faith: It is not defamation to make in good faith an imputation
on the character of another for (i) the protection of the interests of the person making it,
or any other person, or (ii) for the public good (Exception 9).

7) Conveying caution in good faith: It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith
to one person against another provided that such caution is intended for the good of –
i) the person to whom it is conveyed, or
ii) some person in whom that person is interested, or
iii) for the public good (Exception 10).

INDIAN PENAL CODE Page 15

 CRIMINAL DEFAMATION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mishra S. N., Indian Penal Code, 18th Ed. Repr. 2012, P-854.

Gandhi B. M., Indian Penal Code, 2nd Ed. 2006, P-707.

PSA Pillai’s Crimnal law 12th Ed.2014

www.criminal Journal

And other Net source ....

INDIAN PENAL CODE Page 16