2068

IN THE LEARNED COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 1ST CLASS, XYZ

Written Statement filed seeking an Order under Section 177 r/w 199 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

Criminal Case No. of 2024

Gulshan Grover Complainant

v.

ABC Broadcasting Ltd. Respondent

Most respectfully submitted before the Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, XYZ

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT DRAWN AND FILED BY THE

COUNSELS FOR THE COMPLAINANT
 CLASS MOOT, 4TH YEAR, 2024
Page|I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... II

Index of Authorities ...................................................................................................................... III

Table of Cases ............................................................................................................................... IV

Statement of Jurisdiction............................................................................................................... VI

Statement of Facts ........................................................................................................................ VII

Statement of Issues .....................................................................................................................VIII

Summary of Arguments ................................................................................................................ IX

Arguments Advanced...................................................................................................................... 1

CONTENTION 1: THAT ABC BROADCASTING LTD. IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF
DEFAMATION UNDER SECTION 500 IPC …………………………………………………………….1

1.1 That there must be made an imputation concerning any person…………………………….…2

1.2 That such an imputation may be made by words, either spoken or written or even by signs or by
visible representations………………………………………………………………….………..…..3

1.3 That such an imputation must be intending to harm the other person or knowing or having reason
to believe that it would harm the reputation of other person………………...….………………..…..4

1.4 That the test of defamation holds true……………………………………………………...…….5

1.6 That the publication doesn’t fall under any Defence mentioned under Section 499 IPC………..5

1.6 That the public apology is not a valid Defence. …………………………………………………6

1.7 That the Broadcasting Company deserves a deterrent sentence. ………………………………..7

Prayer for Relief ............................................................................................................................. X

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

CLASS MOOT, 4TH YEAR, 2024.
P a g e | II

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION EXTENSION

& And

§ Section

¶ Paragraph

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Assn. Association

Cri. Criminal

ed. Edition

Hon‘ble Honourable

i.e. that is

No. Number

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

§ Section

UOI Union of India

v. Versus

Vol. Volume

Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

CLASS MOOT, 4TH YEAR, 2024.
P a g e | III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

• CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

• INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

DICTIONARIES, ONLINE DATABASES & WEBSITES

• B.A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Ed. (2004).

• Supreme Court Words and Phrases, Surrendra Malik & Sumeet Malik, 3rd Ed. (2013).

• http://www.scconline.com

• http://www.manupatra.com

• https://www.livelaw.in

• http://www.indiankanoon.com

BOOKS
• C.K TAKWANI, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, 11 TH EDITION, EASTERN BOOK COMPANY, 2017.

• RATANLAL &; DHIRAJLAL: THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 34TH EDITION, LEXIS NEXIS, 2021.

• PSA PILLAI: CRIMINAL LAW, 14TH ED.

• SUMEET MALIK, P L MALIK’S CRIMINAL COURT HANDBOOK, 23RD ED., EBC, 2016.

• PRICE, DAVID, KORIEH DUODU, AND NICOLA CAIN, DEFAMATION LAW, PROCEDURE AND
PRACTICE, 4TH ED, SOUTH ASIAN. SWEET & MAXWELL, 2017.

• MULLIS, ALASTAIR, RICHARD PARKES, AND GODWIN BUSUTTIL, GATLEY ON LIBEL AND
SLANDER, 12TH ED., 2015.

Memorial on Behalf of Complainant

CLASS MOOT, 4TH YEAR, 2024.
P a g e | IV

TABLE OF CASES

CASE TITLE CASE PAGE

SR.NO
CITATION NO.
1 1
(2013) 2 SCC 398
Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. and others
2 1
Smt. Kiran Bedi v Committee of Inquiry AIR 1995 SC 117

3 2
S. Khushboo v. Kaniamal and Anr, 2010 (5) SCC 600

4 2
Sahib Singh Mehra v. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 1451

5 2
Le Fanu v. Malcolmson (1848) 1 HLC 637

6 2
Knupffer v. London Express Newspaper Limited (1944) AC 116 24

7 2
Hough v. London Express Newspapers (1940) 2 KB 507

8 C.M.G. Ogilvie v. Punjab Akhbarat and Press 2

(1929) AIR Lah 561
Company Ltd.
9 (1917) 32 MLJ 392 2
Naganatha v. Subramania

10 3
Mangal Sahu v Sukratibai 1980 Cr LJ 431 (MP)

11 Google India Private Limited v. M/s Visakha 3

AIR 2020 SC 350
Industries
12 AIR 2010 SC 2573 3
Mehmood Azam v. State

13 (2016) 7 SCC 221 4

Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India

14 (1966) 68 Bom LR 5
Veeda Menezes v Yusuf Khan 629 (SC)

15 2013 (53) PTC 586 5

Bata India Ltd. v. A.M. Turaz

Memorial on Behalf of Complainant

CLASS MOOT, 4TH YEAR, 2024.
Page|V
16 (1936) 2 All ER 1237 5
Sim v Stretch
31
17 Mitha Rustomji Murzban v. Nusserwanji Nowroji 6
(1941) 43 BOM LR
Engineer 631
18 6
Smith v Harrison (1856) 1 F& F 565

19 6
Govindacharylulu v Srinivasa Rao AIR 1941 Mad 860

20 7
Kaushal Kishor Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2023 (4) SCC 1

21 Aironline 2021 Bom 7

Nilesh Navlakha v. Union of India
14
22 4
Standard Chartered Bank v. Vinay Kumar Sood 2010 Cr LJ 1277 (Del)

23 2
Hulton v Jones (1910) 2 KB 444

24 Gambhirsinh R. Dekare v. Falgunibhai Chimanbhai 3

2013 AIR SCW 1590.
Patel
25 2015 SCC OnLine 4
Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. v. K. Sarat Chandra
Hyd 822.
26 R.Rajagopal @ R.R.Gopal and another v. State of 5
1994 SCC (6) 632.
Tamil Nadu
27 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 6
S.Ve.Shekher v. Al.Gopalsamy
197.
28 7
State of Gujarat v. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat (1998) 7 SCC 392.

29 AIR 1965 SC 1451. 7

Sahib Singh Mehra v. State Of Uttar Pradesh

30 7
Jagadish B. Rao v. State 1974 2 Crl. L.J 1358.

Memorial on Behalf of Complainant

 CLASS MOOT, 4TH YEAR, 2024.
P a g e | VI

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The counsels representing the Complainant have approached before the Learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, XYZ, under Section 177 r/w 199 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 in which the Learned Court has the jurisdiction. The present memorandum sets

forth the facts, contentions and arguments.

SECTION 177

Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction
it was committed.

SECTION 199

(1) No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence: Provided
that where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is from
sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs
and manners, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave
of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf.

Memorial on Behalf of Complainant

 CLASS MOOT, 4TH YEAR, 2024.
P a g e | VII

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. News XYZ is a leading prime time news channel in India. It is owned by the media house ABC

broadcasting Ltd.

2. On 27th January, 2024, while running a story on a large-scale construction scam, in its prime-time

slot, the channel, while talking about an industrialist and builder, Mr. Bhushan Grover who was

running the scam, mistakenly aired the picture of another industrialist who took similar

construction projects, Mr. Gulshan Grover. This happened due to similar sounding names.

3. The picture was flashed for a duration of 15 seconds on two separate occasions.

4. On realizing their mistake, the news channel stopped displaying the said picture and also ran an

apology on their channel for five consecutive days.

5. Mr. Gulshan Grover, on discovering this, was not satisfied with the channel’s apology and filed

an complaint under Section 500 of IPC.

Memorial on Behalf of Complainant

CLASS MOOT, 4TH YEAR, 2024.
P a g e | VIII

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

WHETHER ABC BROADCASTING LTD. IS LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF

DEFAMATION UNDER SECTION 500 IPC?

Memorial on Behalf of Complainant

 CLASS MOOT, 4TH YEAR, 2024.
P a g e | IX

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

CONTENTION 1: THAT ABC BROADCASTING LTD.IS LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF DEFAMATION
UNDER SECTION 500 IPC.

It is submitted that in the instant case, all the essentials of defamation made out under Section 499
IPC have been completely fulfilled. The news channel erroneously broadcasted the picture of Mr.
Gulshan Grover instead of the actual accused of the scam Mr. Bhushan Grover. The picture was on
display for 15 seconds on a news channel that has wide viewership. The malicious intention can be
drawn out from the fact that the photo of Mr. Gulshan Grover was shown not once but twice causing
irreparable loss to reputation of Mr. Gulshan Grover considering both the complainant and the
accused come from same economic community. Hence, the broadcasting company is liable to pay
fine for the offence of defamation; secondly, the criminal intention of the employee responsible
for the broadcast of the picture should be imputed to the corporation; and lastly, the employee
responsible for the broadcast should also be punished for the defamation caused in order to send
a tough message to the news channel against such irresponsible journalism and libelous act. Further,
once defamatory information about a responsible person is published, it is believed by the public and
injures his reputation. Mere apologies do not compensate for the loss caused adequately.
Therefore, the present accused, ABC Broadcasting Ltd. should be held liable for defamation under
Section 500 IPC.

Memorial on Behalf of Complainant

 CLASS MOOT, 4TH YEAR, 2024
Page|1

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

CONTENTION 1: THAT ABC BROADCASTING LTD.IS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF
DEFAMATION.

1 It is submitted before the Learned Court that Reputation is "not only a salt of life but the purest
treasure and the most precious perfume of life".1 It is important to keep in mind that right to reputation
flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and being a facet of right to life and personal
liberty, needs to be adequately protected against defamatory speech and imputations.2 Offence of
defamation is considered to be an injury to the reputation of a person resulting from a statement
which is false.

2 In Black’s Law Dictionary, Defamation has been defined as which tends to injure reputation; to
diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in which the plaintiff has held, or to excite
adverse, derogatory or unpleasant feelings or opinions against him and statement, which exposes
person to contempt, hatred, ridicule or obloquy. 3

3 Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) gives the definition for defamation, which reads as
follows :

Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs 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 hereinafter expected, to defame that person.4

4 It is submitted that a reading of the said Section goes to show that, in order that, an act to become a
‘defamation’,

(a) there must be an imputation concerning any person;

(b) such an imputation may be by words, either spoken or written or even by signs or by visible
representations;

1
Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. and others (2013) 2 SCC 398.
2
Smt. Kiran Bedi v Committee of Inquiry, AIR 1995 SC 117.
3
Bryan A Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary (West Publishing Co, 8th ed.).
4
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), s.499.
 CLASS MOOT, 4TH YEAR, 2024
Page|2

(c) such an imputation must be intending to harm the other person or knowing or having reason to
believe that it would harm the reputation of other person. 5
5 It is humbly submitted before the Learned Court that the media house ABC Broadcasting Ltd. is
liable for the offence of defamation under Section 500 IPC as the essentials of defamation are
completely being met out on in the present case, and it doesn’t fall under any of the 10 exceptions
mentioned under Section 499 IPC.

1.1. That there must be made an imputation concerning any person.

6 It is submitted that the imputation implies accusation which is something more than an expression
of suspicion. It is immaterial whether the imputation is conveyed obliquely or indirectly or by of
question, conjecture, exclamation or by irony. The words must contain an imputation concerning
some particular person or persons whose identity can be established. 6

7 The publication thus made referred to the complainant in this case. It is not necessary for this purpose
that the person should be described by his own name. It is sufficient if he is described by
the initial letters of his name or even by a fictitious name, provided he can satisfy the court
that he was the person referred to. 7 Here, the complainant was referred to by his picture along with
a phonetically similar sounding name. And it is sufficient to prove that people in construction industry
can make out that he is the person meant and consequently maligning his image as a scamster. 8

8 Further, the law relating to the similarity of names was laid down in Hulton v Jones. In Hulton v
Jones9 the House of Lords held that if reasonable men understood the words to refer to the plaintiff,
the defendants would be liable notwithstanding the absence of any intention to defame the plaintiff.
The principle has been followed in India. 10

9 In the present case, the publication of the imputation has taken place by the display of complainant’s
picture while running the story for the construction scam as the complainant and the scamster had a
phonetically similar name, which reasonable men especially in the Construction industry would
understand and refer the construction scam to Mr. Gulshan Grover because of the publication of

5
S. Khushboo v. Kaniamal and Anr, 2010 (5) SCC 600.
6
Sahib Singh Mehra v. State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 1451.
7
Le Fanu v. Malcolmson (1848) 1 HLC 637, 664 ; Knupffer v. London Express Newspaper Limited (1944) AC 116 24.
8
Hough v. London Express Newspapers (1940) 2 KB 507; C.M.G. Ogilvie v. Punjab Akhbarat and Press Company
Ltd (1929) AIR Lah 561.
9
(1910) 2 KB 444.
10
Naganatha v. Subramania (1917) 32 MLJ 392, 298.
 CLASS MOOT, 4TH YEAR, 2024
Page|3
imputation that is the picture.

1.2 That such an imputation may be made by words, either spoken or written or even by signs
or by visible representations.

10 It is submitted that the such imputation could be either by words, signs or visible representations and
they could either be made or published. 11 The difference between making of an imputation and
publication of an imputation is that, while in the former, the communication of the imputation is only
to the person concerned, whereas in the latter, the communication of the imputation is to a third party.
Essence of publication in the context of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code is the communication
of the defamatory imputation to persons other than the person against whom the imputation is made.12

11 Further, every such person who is engaged in composing, dictating, writing or in any way
contributing to the making of the libel is the maker of the libel. 13 In case of Gambhirsinh R. Dekare
v. Falgunibhai Chimanbhai Patel, the Apex Court has ruled down that the If a libel appears in a
newspaper, the proprietor, the editor, the printer and the publisher are liable to be sued either
separately or together.14

12 The publication should be in a permanent form in order to constitute a libel. It is said in

“Gatley on Libel and Slander‟ that, “if the publication is made in a permanent form or is
broadcast or is part of a theatrical performance, it is libel.” 15 And the broadcaster will be
responsible for any material that is broadcasted even where the broadcaster has no real control
over the person who makes the defamatory statement.16 Also they may incur liability for completely
unexpected and enforceable defamatory publication. 17 Thus, it can be inferred from the above that
even broadcast is considered to be a permanent form of publication and even if it was the fault of the
employee and ABC Broadcasting company had no real control over it, it will be held liable and it
will incur liability.

11
Mangal Sahu v Sukratibai, 1980 Cr LJ 431 (MP).
12
Google India Private Limited v. M/s Visakha Industries, AIR 2020 SC 350.
13
Mehmood Azam v. State, AIR 2010 SC 2573.
14
2013 AIR SCW 1590.
15
Mullis, Alastair, Richard Parkes, and Godwin Busuttil, Gatley on Libel and Slander, (12th ed., 2015).
16
Price, David, Korieh Duodu, and Nicola Cain, Defamation Law, Procedure and Practice, ( 4th ed. South Asian. Sweet &
Maxwell 2017).
17
Justice Faulks, M.B.E Committee, Cmnd. 5909 (1975), para.298.
 CLASS MOOT, 4TH YEAR, 2024
Page|4

1.3 That such an imputation must be intending to harm the other person or knowing or having
reason to believe that it would harm the reputation of other person.

13 It is humbly submitted that the intention to cause harm is the most essential ‘sine qua non’ to
constitute an offence of defamation. 18 It was held that the offence under Section 500 IPC requires
blame worthy mind and is not a statutory offence requiring no mens rea. Causing harm to the
reputation of a person is the basis on which the offence is founded and mens rea is a condition
precedent to constitute the said offence. The complainant has to show that the accused had intended
or known or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the
complainant. The criminal offence emphasizes on the intention of harm.19

14 In Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. v. K. Sarat Chandra20, Hyderabad High Court held that malice is
the intentional commission of a wrongful act, absent justification, with the intent to cause harm to
others. The term does not necessarily imply personal hatred, a spiteful or malignant disposition or ill
feelings of any nature but by virtue of its etymological origin, extends to any state of the mind which
is wrong or faulty (whether evinced in action by excess or defect), such as would be unjustifiable in
the circumstances and incompatible with thoroughly innocent intentions. Malice is essential for
criminal defamation. Malice is present if the acts were done in the knowledge that the statement is
invalid and with knowledge that it would cause or be likely to cause injury. Malice would also exist
if the acts were done with reckless indifference or deliberate blindness to that invalidity and that
likely injury. Law punishes those who are reckless in their act and by their recklessness cause harm
or injury to another. Malice is presumed to exist, in law, when there is intention to bring disrepute or
knowledge that the matter in question could bring disrepute to a person. Thus, to escape the charge
of defamation one must show that there was no malice on his part.

15 In the present case, it is to be seen that the Picture was flashed for a period of 15 seconds not once
but twice, making it clear that the respondent had a malicious intent as there can be unintentional
defamation once but repeating the same act twice point towards the intention as well as the
recklessness on the part of the broadcasting channel and as held in R.Rajagopal @ R.R.Gopal and
another v. State of Tamil Nadu action for libel is maintainable if the defendant's statements were

18
Standard Chartered Bank v. Vinay Kumar Sood, 2010 Cr LJ 1277 (Del).
19
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221.
20
2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 822.
 CLASS MOOT, 4TH YEAR, 2024
Page|5
made with reckless disregard.21

16 Furthermore, the expression “harm” means harm to the reputation of the aggrieved party. 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 to harm, or knew, or had reason
to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the complainant. 22

1.4 That the test of defamation holds true.

17 Defamation is the publication of a statement which tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-
thinking members of society generally or which tends to make them shun or avoid that person. The
standard to be applied is that of a right-minded citizen. A man of fair average intelligence, and not
that of a special class of persons whose values are not shared or approved by the fair-minded members
of the society generally.23

18 The test of defamation is whether the words “tend to lower the plaintiff in estimation of right-thinking
members of society generally.” 24 The complainant, being a respected industrialist, was a familiar
name in construction industry and enjoyed a good reputation. Even when wrong information about a
responsible person is aired by the TV channel to entire nation and beyond, it is believed by the public
and injures that person’s reputation. And the effect is manifold when the information about
the much criticized “construction scam‟ is shown for a full 15 seconds at the prime time by a prime
news challenge. Also, for it to be defamatory an imputation need have no actual effect on
claimant’s reputation; the law looks only to its tendency, so there is a cause of action even if words
were not believed by the audience. 25 The tendency of such a publication to defame the respondents
is unquestioned, as it is very likely to cause damage to respondent’s reputation no matter
what.

1.5 That the publication doesn’t fall under any Defence mentioned under Section 499 IPC.

19 The publication made doesn’t fall under any of the defences either. The defences of
“justification by truth‟ and “fair and bona fide comment‟ are negated as the publication was

21
1994 SCC (6) 632.
22
Veeda Menezes v Yusuf Khan (1966) 68 Bom LR 629 (SC).
23
Bata India Ltd. v. A.M. Turaz, 2013 (53) PTC 586.
24
Sim v Stretch (1936) 2 All ER 1237 31.
25
Hough v London Express Newspapers (1940) 2 KB 507.
 CLASS MOOT, 4TH YEAR, 2024
Page|6
completely false. Even the respondent agrees on this point because they amended and
apologized for the same. The defence of privilege also stands negated. The media (newspapers,
broadcasts) enjoy no added privileges and are subjected to the same rules as other critics. Even
though it owes a duty to public to communicate matters of public interest, it is not a
privileged one.26 Instead journalists who publishes complaints of defamatory nature is specially
not privileged as they have a greater responsibility to guard the public against the untruths because
whatever they say is likely to be believed by the ignorant

1.6 That the public apology is not a valid Defence.

20 An apology, under common law, is not a Defence to an action for defamation but is only a
circumstance in mitigation of damages. 27 It is duly submitted before the court is that when there is
an apology and an acceptance thereof, the respondent can resist plaintiff's claim for defamation.28
However, for such a Defence, apology must be accepted by the aggrieved person. Offer to amends
and apologies were never accepted by the industrialist and therefore it cannot be accepted as a
Defence.

21 In S.Ve.Shekher v. Al.Gopalsamy it was held that the more a person is popular in the society, he also
carries more responsibility in what he conveys to the society. The petitioner, in the instant case, falls
under the category of a person of high stature with many followers and he ought to have exercised
more caution before forwarding the message from his facebook account. If such a caution has been
thrown to the winds and as a result, it has had a very serious impact, the petitioner has to necessarily
face it and cannot try to run away from the consequences by merely tendering an unconditional
apology.29

22 Furthermore, A message that is sent or forwarded in the social media is like an arrow, which has
already been shot from the bow. Till that message remains with the sender, it is within his control.
Once it is sent, it is like the arrow, which has already been shot and the sender of the message must
take the ownership for the consequences of the damage done by that arrow (message). Once the
damage is done, it will become very difficult to wriggle out of the same by issuing an apology

26
Mitha Rustomji Murzban v. Nusserwanji Nowroji Engineer (1941) 43 BOM LR 631.
27
Smith v Harrison (1856) 1 F& F 565.
28
Govindacharylulu v Srinivasa Rao, AIR 1941 Mad 860.
29
2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 197.
 CLASS MOOT, 4TH YEAR, 2024
Page|7
statement.30

23 Hence, the damage caused to the reputation due to the erroneous publication is irreparable and the
broadcasting company cannot run from the consequences by issuing a mere public apology as ln the
case of State of Gujarat v. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, the court opined that an honour which is
lost or life which is snuffed out cannot be recompensed.31

1.7 That the Broadcasting Company deserves a deterrent sentence.

24 It is humbly submitted that it is important that the law should not encourage or throw a shield over
irresponsible journalism.32 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Sahib Singh Mehra v. State
Of Uttar Pradesh that the Press has great power in Impressing the minds of the people and it is
essential that persons responsible for publishing anything in newspapers should take good care before
publishing anything which tends to harm the reputation of a person; that reckless comments are to be
avoided and when one is proved to have made defamatory comments with an ulterior motive and
without the least justification motivated by self-interest, he deserves a deterrent sentence.33

25 Additionally, In Jagadish B. Rao v. State it was observed that in considering the quantum of sentence,
in the case of defamation a number of factors such as the type of defamation, the manner in which
defamation was made etc., will have to be taken into consid-ration. It is further observed in that case
that a journalist is required to attach more care and caution in publishing items which are likely to
harm the reputation and good name of others; that papers publishing scandalous articles sometimes
get wide publicity and the circulation increases and consequently the Income of the journalists also
increases; that this, therefore, calls for a deterrent punishment and a mere sentence of fine in such
cases will not at all be adequate.34

26 Hence, in the present case, since the erroneous publication was not made once but twice clearly point
towards the reckless and the callous behavior of the broadcasting company , it calls for a deterrent
punishment and the maker of the publication should be liable for offence of defamation under Section
500 IPC and should be punished with simple imprisonment for a term of two years and with fine.

30
Kaushal Kishor Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 (4) SCC 1.
31
(1998) 7 SCC 392.
32
Nilesh Navlakha v. Union of India, Aironline 2021 Bom 14.
33
AIR 1965 SC 1451.
34
1974 2 Crl. L.J 1358.
CLASS MOOT, 4TH YEAR, 2024
Page|X

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Counsel

on behalf of the Complainant humbly prays before the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

XYZ to kindly adjudge and declare that: -

a) ABC Broadcasting Ltd. is liable for offence of defamation under Section 500 IPC.

AND/OR

Pass any other order which the bench deems fit in the best interest of Justice, Equity and Good

Conscience, and for this act of kindness, the Counsel on behalf of the Complainant as in duty

bound shall forever pray.

All of which is respectfully submitted

Sd/-

Counsel for Complainant

Memorial on Behalf of Complainant