The Jharkhand High Court has held that a reporter cannot be fastened with criminal liability for publishing a news report based on a statement made by a police officer, where the reporter merely reports what was stated by the officer. The Court observed that the respondent was “merely a Reporter” who had published what had been stated by the SDPO and that “the publication of a news item is beyond the purview of a Reporter and the same cannot fasten any criminal liability upon him.”

A Division Bench of Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Arum Kumar Rai was hearing an appeal against the judgment dated 26.09.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Deoghar, which had set aside the conviction of the respondents under Section 500 of the IPC.

The complainant, who was the Head Clerk of A.S. College, Deoghar, had alleged that the accused persons published a news item in Prabhat Khabar stating that he had been suspended and that an FIR had been lodged against him during the tenure of the then Principal, Dr. H. Narayan.

According to the complainant, the publication lowered his prestige in society and caused him considerable mental stress. The Trial Court convicted respondents 2 to 4 under Section 500 IPC and sentenced them to one year's simple imprisonment. The Sessions Court subsequently set aside the conviction, leading the complainant to approach the High Court.

Counsel for the appellant submitted that the accused had not produced any evidence showing that the appellant had gone to jail in any case instituted against him during Dr. H. Narayan's tenure. It was argued that the publication of such false news had lowered the complainant's reputation and defamed him.

The Court noted that respondent no. 2 was the Principal of A.S. College at the relevant time, while respondent no. 4 was a Reporter with Prabhat Khabar. The Court perused the news item, which recorded a statement by SDPO Vipul Shukla that forged certificates had been submitted in connection with admissions to the B.A./B.Com. stream and that the appellant and some others were found responsible for the illegal admissions.

The Court observed that respondent no. 2 had merely stated the procedure followed for admission and the duties and responsibilities of the Head Clerk. It held that this part of the news item was not defamatory as it merely concerned the conduct of the Head Clerk in cases where admissions were made on the basis of fake certificates.

As regards respondent no. 4, the Court noted that he was merely a Reporter who had published what had been stated by the SDPO. The Court further noted that the complainant had not filed any defamation case against the SDPO, a fact which had also been taken into consideration by the appellate court. It held:

“The respondent No. 4 was merely a Reporter and the publication of a news item is beyond the purview of a Reporter and the same cannot fasten any criminal liability upon him.”

Finding no reason to interfere with the Sessions Court's judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were also closed.

Case Title: Bimlendu Narayan Ball v. State of Jharkhand and Ors

Case Number: Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 15 of 2015

Appearance:

For the Appellant: Mr. Jayant Kumar Pandey, Advocate; Dr. Anwar Hussain, Advocate.

For the State: APP.

For the Respondent-2: Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate; Ms. Puja Kumari, Advocate; Ms. Ritu Kumari, Advocate.

For the Resp.-3 & 4: Mr. Deepak Kr. Bharti, Advocate.

Click Here To Read/Download Order