- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34711 CRL.RP No. 1067 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1067 OF 2017 BETWEEN: MR.ANDO PAUL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O P.P PAUL, EDITIOR AND PUBLISHER, PATTANGA NEWSPAPER, AZIZDDIN ROAD, BUNDER, NOW R/AT ANSHEL MAIN ROAD, LANDLINKS TOWNSHIP, DEREBAIL, KONCHADY, MANGALORE, D K - 574 006. …PETITIONER (BY SRI G.C.SRI HARSHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: GLADYS PAIS, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, W/O. PETER FERNANDES, R/AT PALLAMAJALU HOUSE, BANTWAL, MOODA VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 575023. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI P.B.UMESH, AMICUS CURIAE) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 17.11.2015 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BUNTWAL IN C.C.NO.358/2000 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 19.08.2017 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN CRL.A.NO.269/2015. Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34711 CRL.RP No. 1067 of 2017 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This Criminal Revision Petition is filed assailing the concurrent finding, wherein the petitioner is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.10,000/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation. 2. The petitioner/accused filed Criminal Appeal No.269/2015 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mangaluru questioning the judgment dated 17.11.2015 passed in C.C.No.358/2000 on the file of JMFC, Bantwal. 3. The Appellate Court found that the petitioner / accused is guilty of offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC. However, has modified the sentence by awarding fine of Rs.25,000/-. The sentence of simple imprisonment of one - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34711 CRL.RP No. 1067 of 2017 year awarded by the Trial Court is set-aside and the Appellate Court imposed simple imprisonment of three months in the event of default of payment of fine amount of Rs.25,000/-. 4. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment, the petitioner/accused is before this Court. 5. The Petition is filed alleging defamation on account of publication said to have been published by the petitioner. It is stated that the accused/petitioner is the Editor and Publisher of the magazine called ‘Pattanga Patrike’. On 15.06.1998, in the 18th page, the complainant’s photograph was published along with complainant’s sister – Stella. Photographs are published under the caption- ‘vÀªÀÄä£À ¸Á«UÉ PÉÊ eÉÆÃr¹zÀªÀgÀÄ'. 6. Complainant claims that the said publication is false and per se defamatory and same is published with an intention to harm the reputation of the complainant and she has also claimed damages at Rs.1 lakh. It is further claimed that the complainant has undergone mental torture and the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34711 CRL.RP No. 1067 of 2017 public are suspecting her character. Based on these allegations, the complaint is filed. 7. The petitioner/accused appeared before the Trial Court and disputed the claim. 8. The petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and produced 6 records. Ex.P1 is the publication by the petitioner/accused. Ex.P2 the lawyer’s notice issued to the accused. Ex.P3 is the postal acknowledgement letter for having served the notice. Exs.P4, P5 and P6 are the credentials of the complainant. 9. Admittedly, no witness is examined on behalf of the complainant. Accused has also not led any evidence on his behalf. 10. The petitioner has not disputed the publication. By referring to the contents of the publication, the Trial Court found that the publication is per se defamatory and no justification is offered by the petitioner/accused relating to the contents of the publication. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34711 CRL.RP No. 1067 of 2017 11. Appellate Court also held that the publication is per se defamatory and confirmed the finding of the Trial Court. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that to establish a case relating to defamation, the complainant is not only required to establish that the contents of the publication are false, but is also required to establish that the publication has harmed the reputation in the estimation of others and unless it is established that the reputation of the complainant is lowered in the estimation of others, the offence under Section 499 of IPC is not made out. 13. It is also urged that the evidence of the complainant alone is not sufficient. The complainant must examine other persons in whose estimation the petitioner’s reputation is lowered. 14. Learned counsel would refer to the explanation IV of the Section 499 of IPC to substantiate his contention and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34711 CRL.RP No. 1067 of 2017 he would also place reliance on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.1044/2017. 15. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent though served with the notice has not appeared. Learned predecessor of this Court has appointed Amicus Curiae on behalf of the complainant to assist the Court. 16. Learned Amicus Curiae would submit that the publication is per se defamatory and the accused has not placed any material to show that there is truth in the publication and the accused having admitted the publication has committed an offence under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. It is also his contention that under 1st exception to Section 499 of IPC, if the publication is made for the public good then, it is not an offence and it is not a defamation. 18. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34711 CRL.RP No. 1067 of 2017 19. On going through the contents of the complaint as well as the evidence placed before the Court, it is apparent that the complainant is complaining defamation on account of the publication in the magazine published by the accused. No doubt it is true that the accused has not stepped into the witness box and has not led any evidence to contend that what is published in the magazine is the truth. Nevertheless, to attract Section 499 of IPC, it is necessary to establish that because of the publication by the accused, the complainant’s reputation is damaged and the complainant is defamed. 20. The explanation IV of Section 499 of Indian Penal Code reads as under: "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". (Emphasis supplied) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34711 CRL.RP No. 1067 of 2017 21. On perusal of explanation IV of Section 499 of IPC, it is explicitly clear that the person’s reputation is said to be lowered only in a situation where others feel that the person’s reputation is lowered on account of the publication made by other person/s. 22. As already noticed, complainant/ respondent has not led any evidence of the third party to hold that his reputation is lowered in the estimation of others. The petitioner’s statement that his reputation is lowered in the estimation of others is to be substantiated by leading evidence of other person/s in whose estimation the complainant's reputation is lowered. This aspect of the matter is not noticed by the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court. 23. Both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have not referred to the explanation IV to Section 499 of IPC. However, Appellate Court makes an observation that the publication itself has lowered the reputation of the complainant. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34711 CRL.RP No. 1067 of 2017 24. This Court is of the view that without there being any evidence of independent witness from the public the finding that the complainant's reputation is lowered is erroneous. 25. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment dated 19.08.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.269/2015 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru is set-aside. (iii) The impugned judgment dated 17.11.2015 in CC.No.358/2000 on the file of JMFC, Bantwala is set-aside. (iv) The petitioner is acquitted of all charges. (v) Bail Bond if any stands cancelled. (vi) Fine amount if any, shall be released in favour of the complainant. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 35