Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 04-12-2017 in case of petitioner name Mohammed Abdulla Khan vs Prakash K.
| |

Defamation and Vicarious Liability: Analysis of Mohammed Abdulla Khan vs. Prakash K. Judgment

The case of Mohammed Abdulla Khan vs. Prakash K. revolves around the legal question of whether the owner of a newspaper can be held criminally liable for defamation under Sections 500, 501, and 502 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for publishing defamatory content. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the complaint against the newspaper owner should proceed or be quashed.

The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had erred in quashing the proceedings against the newspaper owner. It emphasized that liability for defamation does not solely rest with the editor but can extend to others responsible for the publication, including the owner, provided they had knowledge of the defamatory content.

Background of the Case

The respondent, Prakash K., is the owner of the Kannada daily newspaper Jaya Kirana, published in Mangalore, Karnataka. On 16.12.2013, the newspaper carried a news item containing allegations against the appellant, Mohammed Abdulla Khan. The appellant claimed that the allegations were defamatory and filed a complaint against both the owner and the editor of the newspaper.

When the police failed to take action, the appellant filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC)-II, Mangalore, which was registered as CC No. 1252 of 2014. The Magistrate took cognizance of the matter on 15.04.2014 under Sections 500, 501, and 502 IPC.

Aggrieved by this order, the respondent (newspaper owner) challenged it in the Sessions Court, which dismissed his plea. He then approached the Karnataka High Court under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court quashed the proceedings against him on 23.11.2016, ruling that there was no vicarious liability in criminal law.

The appellant then moved the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues

The main legal questions before the Supreme Court were:

  • Can a newspaper owner be held liable for defamation under Sections 500, 501, and 502 IPC?
  • Does criminal law recognize vicarious liability for defamation?
  • Was the High Court justified in quashing the proceedings?

Arguments by the Appellant (Mohammed Abdulla Khan)

The appellant, appearing in person, contended that:

  • The news item published in Jaya Kirana was defamatory.
  • The owner of the newspaper, as the person financially benefiting from the publication, could not escape liability.
  • Even if the respondent was not the editor, he could still be prosecuted if he had knowledge of the defamatory material.
  • The High Court’s reasoning was flawed as it did not examine the legal principles correctly.

Arguments by the Respondent (Prakash K.)

The respondent did not appear before the Supreme Court. However, in the High Court, he had argued:

  • The editor of the newspaper, not the owner, was responsible for the content.
  • Vicarious liability does not exist in criminal law.
  • As his role was limited to ownership, he should not be prosecuted.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s judgment, calling it “cryptic” and “unstructured.” It noted:

“The High Court did not choose to give any reason whatsoever for quashing the complaint except a grand declaration that ‘it would lead to a miscarriage of justice.’”

The Court then analyzed Section 499 IPC, which defines defamation, and observed:

“If the content of a news item is defamatory, the mere printing of such material, knowing or having good reason to believe it is defamatory, constitutes an offense under Section 501 IPC.”

It further held:

“The sale or offering for sale of such defamatory material, knowing that it contains defamatory content, constitutes an offense under Section 502 IPC.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled that:

  • The High Court erred in quashing the complaint.
  • Whether the newspaper owner had knowledge of the defamatory content must be determined in trial.
  • The prosecution could proceed, and the trial court must examine the evidence.
  • Sections 501 and 502 IPC could apply if the owner had control over the newspaper’s content.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for media law in India:

  • Newspaper owners cannot automatically claim immunity from criminal defamation.
  • Prosecution can be initiated against owners if they have knowledge of defamatory content.
  • The ruling strengthens accountability in print media.
  • It clarifies the scope of criminal defamation under the IPC.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms that owners of newspapers can be prosecuted for defamation if they are involved in publishing defamatory content. The ruling ensures that individuals cannot escape liability merely by claiming they are not editors. It upholds the principle that accountability in media extends beyond editorial roles to ownership and publication control.

Judgment delivered by: J. Chelameswar, S. Abdul Nazeer

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Mohammed Abdulla Kha vs Prakash K. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 04-12-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Criminal Defamation
See all petitions in Civil Defamation
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Judgment by J. Chelameswar
See all petitions in Judgment by S. Abdul Nazeer
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Defamation Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Defamation Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Defamation Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Defamation Cases Category

Similar Posts