A court in Vadodara delivered a verdict on Wednesday, finding Falgun Chimanbhai Patel, the editor-in-chief of the Gujarati newspaper Sandesh, guilty in a criminal defamation case stemming from a 1999 article concerning Gambhirsinh Dekare, who was serving as a mamlatdar in Vadodara at the time.
The court sentenced Patel to 20 days of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 15,000.
The Judicial Magistrate First Class in Vadodara determined that Patel bore legal responsibility as the newspaper’s editor. The court dismissed his defense, which claimed that he worked from the Ahmedabad office and had no direct engagement with the Vadodara edition of the paper.
The case originated from a report published in Sandesh on September 28, 1999, in which Dekare alleged that the article contained serious defamatory statements that tarnished his reputation among the public, government officials, and his family.
Following the article’s release, Dekare sent a legal notice to the newspaper on September 29, 1999. According to his complaint, the newspaper’s management failed to provide a satisfactory reply, prompting him to file a criminal complaint against resident editor Navin Chauhan and chief editor Falgun Patel.
The complaint invoked various sections of the Indian Penal Code and alleged that after the article was published, Dekare faced threats of more damaging reports and warnings regarding his job security as Mamlatdar.
During the trial, Patel’s defense argued that his administrative duties were based in Ahmedabad, and he lacked direct knowledge of the Vadodara publication’s content. They also presented an affidavit from the resident editor of Vadodara, attempting to shift the responsibility onto the local editorial team.
The defense further contested the validity of the newspaper copy submitted by the complainant, stating that there was no evidence proving that the copy had been obtained from an authorized source. Additionally, Patel’s defense invoked the notion of “good faith and public interest” under Section 499 of the IPC.
The magistrate rejected Patel’s claim that his role at the Ahmedabad office exempted him from liability, referencing Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867. The court emphasized that Patel, as the named editor, was legally accountable for the published content.
Moreover, the court dismissed the objection regarding the newspaper copy, noting that the defense had already acknowledged the report was published in good faith and in public interest, which the court interpreted as an admission of publication and did not necessitate further proof.
Regarding the issue of good faith, the court concluded that the defense witnesses were not direct witnesses to the events that formed the basis of the report, with the evidence they provided being hearsay. The court also observed that the police station diary entry referenced by the defense did not mention Dekare.
Additionally, the court noted that there had been no attempts to obtain Dekare’s perspective or verify the allegations prior to the publication of the article.
Stay informed with the latest updates – Click here to follow us on Instagram.
