1988 PLP 566 (MLD)

"K.E.S.C. accused of casing private sector Directors." It further went on to say that:‑‑ "Mr. Akhtar alleged glaring irregularities in the affairs of Corporation. He said that the share of private shareholders' profit had slumped from Four Crores till recent years to Rs. One Crore. He also said that one of the Directors was paid Rs. 42,450 in 1971, and Rs. 92,500 in 1972 for "Legal advice" which he was supposed to have rendered to the Corporation. Similar irregularities had taken place in the appointment of management Consultant for the K.E.S.C. about 3 years ago." The above allegations have been repeated by the plaintiff in his evidence. He has further stated that he received telephones from various friends and other persons and the impression given to him by them was that he was cheating the Corporation through his agency as a Director of K.E.S.C. That he was fraudulently taking away money from K.E.S.C. and the amounts which were taken by him were unlawful for a man like him. That as a Director he was only paid the directorship fee of about Rs. 50 for attending a meeting. Whenever he was engaged to represent K.E.S.C. in any case or suit he was paid his fee as Lawyer. the figures mentioned in Ex. 6/1, are false, dishonest and malicious. In tross examination he has stated that he did not remember as to in how many cases the K.E.S.C. engaged him in the years 1971 and 1972. He did not remember whether he had charged Rs. 29,000 as professional fee in the year 1972. The defendant No. 1 has not denied the holding of Conference but the stand taken by him was that in the Press Conference he had stated that in the year 1971 Rs. 40,000 and in the year 1972 Rs. 29,500 were paid as legal fee. These figures which he had oven were based on individual report of K.E.S.C. He had also pointed out that since inception of the Board of Directors there had been no election of Director` and no public representative was allowed because of manuvering mainly because the Secretary of K.E.S.C. was "Samadhi" of the plaintiff and other vested interest. He has absolutely no intention to defame the plaintiff. This was on dispute of principle. From the above evidence, it is clear that relations between the plaintiff and defendant No. .1 were strained and the portion of the news item mentioned A above clearly refers to the plaintiff. That the figures published were incorrect and misleading, therefore, this issue is answered in affirmative. ISSUES NOS. 2 3 6 AND 8: In view of the fact that these issues are inter‑connected, therefore the same are taken up together. It has been admitted by the defendant No. 1 that he had addressed a press conference at Karachi Press Club. He has also not denied the allegations published in the news item except the difference of amount alleged to have been paid to the plaintiff. The case of the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 is that since the allegations made by defendant No. 1 involved organisation of great public importance and since these allegations were made by a shareholder of K.E.S.C. as well by a person who claimed to hold proxies of 70 Lacs worth private shares, and entitlement of Directorship, the gist of the news of the press conference was published in good faith innocently, and in public interest and without any actual malice and/or gross negligence in the issue dated 19‑1‑1973. The gist of news conference was correctly and truly reported. The defendant No. 1 has examined Mr. S.M. Azad Chief Reporter of daily Morning News, who has deposed that an invitation for the press conference was sent to all the reporters including the reporter of Morning News who attended and reported whatever was stated at the press conference. The plaintiff had not served any notice on Morning News. MRA.R. Akhtar learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has conceded that in view of the assertion made by the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 for having published the news regarding the press conference addressed by defendant 4 No. 1 in good faith, and no evidence having been led by defendant No. 1 regarding misunderstanding about the figures, the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 were not liable for damages. The defendant No. 1 has not produced any evidence to show that figures of Rs. 92,000 and Rs. 42,450 were misprinted. He leas not produced any other newspaper or news reporter to show that he had mentioned the amounts of Rs. 29,500 and Rs. 30,200 instead of Rs. 92,500 and Rs.42,

450. Therefore, it is clear that the defendant has failed to prove that the change in figures was by misprint or was due to misunderstanding. In view of the above discussion issues Nos. 2, 6 and 8 are decided in affirmative, while issue No. 3 is decided in negative. ISSUE N0.4: In view of the fact that news item in question was published by the defendants Nos. 2 to 4, the suit against them was maintainable, but in view of my finding on issues Nos. 2, 6 and 8, the suit against defendants Nos. 2 to 4 is dismissed with no order as to costs. ISSUE NO. 5: This issue has not been pressed by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants Nos. 2 to

4. ISSUE NO. 7: It is the case of the plaintiff that he has been practising law since 1953. At the same time he was social and political figure in Karachi. In 1946‑47 he was Secretary City Muslim League, Karachi, and as such, he had contacts with various prominent figures and used to enjoy a social status. In the year 1951‑52 he was appointed, nominated or elected as Director of K.E.S.C. In 1959, the Government of Pakistan had applied for loan from World Bank for K.E.S.C. and he was nominated by the Government as well as by K.E.S.C. to represent them at. Washington on the legal side. He was taken on the panel of Advocates of Central Government, legal advisor to the Income‑Tax Department, and Pakistan Industrial Finance Organisation. In 1966, he was elected as Member of National Assembly of Pakistan from Sialkot. From about 1952, till 1973, he remained Director of K.E.S.C. In 1973, when the annual General Meeting of K.E.S.C. took place, he was one of the candidates for election of Director. Mr. Rafiq Akhtar the defendant No. 1 was also candidate for one of the said posts. That the statement published in the newspaper was malicious and defamatory, and he was terribly upset due to above publication and, therefore, did not contest the election of K.E.S.C. thereafter. He has claimed Rs. 1,00,000 as damages. His evidence has not been shaken in cross‑examination in any way. The publication of news has not been denied by defendant

1. He has only stated that it was a misprint so far as the figures were concerned. The news item clearly shows that the defendant No. 1 had addressed the press conference in which he had made defamatory statement against the plaintiff and had made false allegations about the payment of huge amount which he himself has admitted with reservation that same were published by newspaper due to misunderstanding but no other evidence has been produced by the defendant No. 1 to show that he had given a correct figure and the figures published in the newspaper were either misprint or were mentioned due to misunderstanding. Mr. A.R. Akhtar, learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that in view of the above circumstances it was proved that Press conference was held by the defendant No. 1 in which he had made false, malicious and defamatory allegations against the plaintiff, and the statement made by the defendant No. 1 in press conference was published in the `Morning News' and, therefore, the defendant No. 1 was liable to pay damages. The learned counsel in support of his contention relied upon:‑‑ (1) P L D 1970 Kar. 315 (2) P L D 1975 Kar. 379 (3) P L D 1981 Kar. 515 Mr. MA. Rafiq, learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 has contended that defendant had no malice against the plaintiff and that he had addressed a press conference and narrated the facts in good faith and for public good. Therefore, the defendant No. 1 was not liable to pay damages. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel. In case of Altaf Gohar v. Wajid Shamsul Hasan and another P L D 1981 Kar. 515 it was held by this Court that in order to succeed in an action for defamation the plaintiff has to prove:‑ (a) that the words complained of are defamatory; (b) that they refer to the plaintiff and (c) that there has been publication to a third party. If all these elements are proved by the plaintiff, the facility of the charge and malicious are presumed by the Court. If, however, the defendant succeeds m proving that what is stated by him is true and privileged, then the plaintiff has to further establish malice on the part of defendant. In the case of Harold Robert Hency Lind v. British Insulated Callender's Constructions Co. Ltd. P L D 1970 Kar. 315; it was observed by this Court that:‑‑ "Defendant publishing words irrelevant and unnecessary for protection of his interest and such words also false to his knowledge, facts sufficient to prove actual and express malice, defence of qualified privilege in circumstances, held, not sustainable." In the case of Dr. O.M. Oarni v. Mir Khalilur Rehman and 4 others; P L D 1975 Kar. 379, it was observed that :‑‑ "In an action for damages for libel it is not part of plaintiffs duty to prove that words complained of arc false for law presumes that in his favour. Since the defendants have pleaded justification as their defence the onus was on them to prove that the imputations were true and not merely that they believed them to be true." I am in respectful agreement with the above observations, and hold that the plaintiff was entitled damages. However, the question of amount of damages requires consideration. The plaintiff has claimed Rs. 1,00,000 against the defendants for publication of the defamation concerning him. However, he has not led any evidence on quantum of damages. The learned counsel for the plaintiff urged at the time of arguments that keeping in view the circumstances of the case and social status of plaintiff in life, amount claimed as damages may be decreed. On the other hand, Mr. M.A. Rafiq, learned counsel for defendant No. 1 has contended that the plaintiff having failed to prove special damages, he was not entitled to general damages as well. In the case of Altaf Gohar v. Wajid Shamsuddin it was observed by this Court that:‑‑ "The grant of general damages in proceedings of this nature where plaintiff succeeds in proving defamation is inherent in the action as the law presumes that some damage must have resulted to plaintiff by publication of defamatory and libellous statement which is actionable. There is, however, no rule of law regulating assessment of general damages in such cases. It is left to the jury in England and to Judge in this country to assess the damages. The assessment of damages in such cases is therefore not capable of any exact appraisement. However, while assessing the amount of general damages, it must be kept in view that damages for defamation are compensatory in nature and therefore the amount assessed should not appear to be punitive or exemplary. No doubt on proof of certain facts the Court may grant even punitive or exemplary damages but these need not be discussed here as neither such damages are claimed by the plaintiff nor a case for their grant is made out here." The question of grant of general damages was considered in the above three cases referred to by me, and in the case of Harold Robert Hency Lind Rs. 10,000 were allowed as general damages, while in the case of Dr. Q.M. Qarni Rs. 15,000 were allowed as general damages inspite of existence of mitigating circumstances as the defendants in that suit were prepared to publish in their paper, the version of the controversy. While in the case of Altaf Gohar Rs. 25,000 were allowed as general damages. In view of the above discussion, and looking to the circumstances of this case as well as legal position, I am of the considered view that the sum of Rs. 40,000 (Rs. Forty thousand) only as damages will adequately meet the ends of justice. Accordingly .the suit is decreed against the defendant No. I for a sum of Rs. 40:000 (Rs. Forty thousand) only with proportionate cost. The defendant No. 1 is also liable to pay interest at the rate of 6 % from the date of filing of the present suit. The suit against the defendants Nos. 2 to 4 is hereby dismissed. AA./A‑376/L Suit partly decreed.