“Defence of public good” exception to s. 499 IPC is question of fact that has to be seen during trial & not at the stage of summons: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court recently held that, defence of public good under section 499 of IPC is a question of fact and has to be seen during trial and not at the stage of summons.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava while dismissing the present application that suggested exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. observed that,

“The question whether or not the imputation was made for public good would therefore be a question of fact which would be required to be proved by the accused to seek the benefit of the first exception to Section 499. The defence in this regard being a question of fact, can be decided during   trial   only   and   the   benefit   of   the   first exception cannot be claimed at the stage of issuance of summons.”

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has  been  filed that sought to  quash   the proceedings  of Complaint Case (Mohan Lal Saravagi Vs. Rajesh  Churiwala),  u/s 500  I.P.C.,  pending before  the  Additional  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate, Varanasi, within a stipulated time period.

The Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that, “the offence under Section 499 I.P.C. is not made out inasmuch as the case is covered   under   the   first   exception   to   the   section   which provides that if the imputation is made for public good, the same would not amount to defamation.”

On the other hand the learned AGA pointed out that, “the question as to whether an imputation is made for public good or not would be a question of fact which is to be seen in the trial and   the   same   cannot be taken as a ground to seek quashing of the proceedings.”

Taking into account the factual matrix of the present case the bench made the following observations –

• The first exception corresponds to the defence which may be set up by taking the plea of the imputation being true and for public good. This exception recognizes the publication of truth as a sufficient justification, if it is made for the public good. Truth by itself would be no justification in criminal law, unless it is proved that its publication was for the public good.
• The plea of defence of public good, under the first exception to Section 499, fell for consideration in Chaman Lal Vs. State of Punjab, and it was held that public good is a question of fact and the onus of proving the two ingredients under the first exception i.e. the imputation is true   and   the   publication   is   for   public   good,   is   on   the accused.
• In   a   civil   action   for defamation in tort, truth is a defence, but in a criminal action, the accused would be required to prove both the truth of the matter and also that its publication was for public   good   and   no   amount   of   truth   would   justify a defamatory act unless its publication is proved to have been made for public good. The defence of truth is not satisfied   merely   by   proving   that   the   publisher   honestly believed the statement to be true, he must prove that the statement was in fact true.
• As to what is public good would be a question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the onus of proving two ingredients, namely, truth of the imputation and the publication of the imputation for the public good, would be on the accused.
• At the stage of issuing process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there   are   sufficient   grounds   for   proceeding   against   the accused.   At this stage, there is no requirement to enter into   the   detailed   factual   aspects   or   on   the   merits   or demerits of the case.

The bench further noted that,

“The Magistrate is required only to be prima facie satisfied that there   are   sufficient   grounds   for   proceeding   against   the accused and the defence of the accused is to be seen only during the course of the trial. The protection of the first exception to Section 499 of the Penal Code, which is being relied upon on behalf of the applicant, is not to be seen at this stage.”

[Case Title – Rajesh Churiwala v. State of UP, 2021]

[Law point – S. 499 ( first exception) of IPC,1860]