1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.---The plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration, injunction and damages amounting to rupees five crores. The facts as pleaded in the plaint are that the plaintiff belongs to a respectable and educated family and serving in Pakistan International Airlines as Air Hostess and is one of the founder member of the union of Employees of PIAnamely "Air League" which is CBA of PFA and in her entire service has not committed any wrong act or misconduct. It waspleaded in the plaint that on 3-8-1999 the defendant published a detestable publication about the person of plaintiff in weekly Magazine "Ghazi" alleging false charge against the plaintiff for prostitution and drinking liquor in a hotel in Paris and other allegations. It was further pleaded that plaintiff is innocent and unmarried girl and the allegations are absolutely false and the false material has been published because of burning copy of Daily Ummat News paper by the plaintiff which is a sister concerns of defendants. The false material published by the defendants has totally damaged the dignity and respect of the plaintiff in the eyes of society and has irreparably damaged the position of the plaintiff and her fiance dissolved his engagement with the plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff has termed the publication as false and has submitted that publication is false, highly defamatory, obnoxious and objectionable and was published with mala fide intention, arbitrarily and violated the Injunction of Islam, Constitution of Pakistan and dignity of man. The plaintiff served legal notice, dated 5-8-1999 to all defendants asking to tender unconditional apology and to pay Rs,50,000,000 (Rupees five crores) to the plaintiff but to no avail.
3. ' After service of summons the defendants filed their joint written statement. In the written statement it was stated that the news published in the newspaper as well as in the magazine is based on the material collected by reporters on the basis of evidence available with them. It was further stated that news is correct. The defendants plead justification, privilege and fair comments in their defence. The news was published in the public interest without any malicious intention or ulterior motives and that the defendants have investigated the matter and had made enquiries from a number of persons who unveiled the truth which was published. It was further pleaded in the written statement that the plaintiff can always be examined by the Doctor during trial for the purpose of verifying the claim of her virginity and non-use of alcohol.
4. ' From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the publication in respect of the plaintiff published in weekly Magzine Ghazi, dated 3-8- 1999 has damaged, defamed, and lowered the position, honor dignity of the plaintiff in the eyes of the society, relatives and employees and thereby the said publication has caused severe mental torture and irreparable loss to the plaintiff.
(2) Whether the publication, dated 3-8-1999 in respect of the character of the plaintiff, made by the defendants charging her with the fame and act of prostitution and drinking liquor in a Hotel in Paris is correct.
(3) Whether the Government of France was in knowledge of the alleged offence and if so, what action was taken by the Government of France against the plaintiff.
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages in terms of money from the defendants on accounts of publication in Magzine Ghazi, dated 3-8-1999, if so, whether the actual damages may be Rs,5 crore.
(5) What should the decree be.
5. ' In support of the claim the plaintiff filed her affidavit-in-evidence and produced documents from Exhs. P/1 to P/18 and examined one witness, namely, A. J. Ali. On behalf of defendants Rafiq Afghan, defendant No,1, was examined.
6. ' My findings on the issues are as under:-- Issue No,2: ' I will first deal with issue No,2 as the same has direct effect on the findings of other issues.
7. ' The burden to prove this issue is upon the defendants. The plaintiff in her affidavit in evidence has stated that publication about her person alleging false charges of prostitution and drinking liquor in a hotel in Paris are cheap mean concocted, fabricated and bundle of falsehood. In cross- examination the defendant could not contradict the above piece of evidence. The burden is shifted upon the defendant to prove by cogent evidence inspiring confidence that publication was not false and was published in the public interest. Although in the written statement it was stated that the publication was made after investigation and material collected by the reporters on the basis of evidence available with them but no material was placed on record and no witness was examined. The defendants have failed to place any material on record to show that the allegations levelled by them against the plaintiff are correct and has been published in good faith, in the public interest. In American Life Insurance v. M.S. Khawaja (PLD 1990 (W.P.) Kar. 568) case it has been held that if the matter is defamatory the falsity of it is presumed until it is proved to be true. In support of her claim the plaintiff examined the witness, namely, A.J. Ali who in his affidavit has stated that to his knowledge no such incident ever happened which was published in weekly Magazine, dated 3-8-1999. In cross-examination this piece of evidence could not be rebutted by the learned counsel for the defendants. The allegations of prostitution and drinking against any woman are very serious in nature and sufficient material is required to establish the truth. The allegations at the face of it are defamatory in nature. In the abovecited case it was held that matter will be deemed to be defamatory, if it exposes the plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule or tends to injure him in her profession or trade. Mere words of defendant No,1 are sufficient to establish that the allegations are correct and published after investigation in the interest of public.
8. Mr. Ashfaq Hussain submits that A in spite of freedom of press guaranteed in Article 19 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, press is not free to published a material without proper verification.
9. ' Mr. Khawaja Naveed Ahmed submits that the plaintiff has failed to prove any malice against the defendants.
10. ' From the publication, dated 3-8-1999 it is clear that the incident quoted in the publication was not recent one but it was allegedly happened in last year. The defendants have failed to justify what was the need of publishing an incident allegedly happened last year. This shows the mala fide intention of the defendants that to take revenge from the plaintiff who has burned the copies of Daily Ummat the publication was made. While publishing any news-item it is necessary for the press not to B violate principles of decency and established norms of morality. In the reported case of Syed Masroor Ehsan v. Cowasji and others (PLD 1998 SC 823) it has been observed as under:-- "Freedom of press is not absolute, unlimited and unfettered. The protective cover of press freedom must not be thrown open for wrong doings. The press is expected to recognize its duties and responsibilities towards the Society and in discharging their duties/functions that should not compromise on public order, decency and morality."
11. ' It was further observed in the same case that "an irresponsible conduct and attitude on the part of an editor, reporter, columnist and publisher cannot be said to have been adopted in good faith". In view of above discussion I hold that the news published on 3-8-1999 was not correct.
12. Issue No,1: As I have already held above that the news published on 3-8-1999 was not correct it certainly defamed and lowered the position, honour and dignity of the plaintiff and that false publication has definitely caused mental torture and irreparable loss to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is an unmarried girl and false allegations of prostitution and drinking liquor dissolved her engagement.
13. The plaintiff has made the statement on oath which was gone unrebutted. We are living in a society where such type of allegations are fatal for women folk. The defendants have to take extra care in publishing such type of material which at the face of it is defamatory. Article 14 of Constitution of 1973 provides that dignity of man is inviolable. The human dignity, honour and respect are more important than physical comforts and necessities. No attempt on the part of any one to detract, defames, or disgrace another, thereby diminishing, decreasing or degrading the dignity, respect, reputation and value of life, more particularly on the part of journalist should be allowed to go with impunity. In the cross-examination the plaintiff in her voluntary statement states that no such thing had ever happened and what is stated in Exh.P/15 is totally wrong. The plaintiff in her affidavit-in-evidence states that because of the said publication she has faced irreparable loss of reputation, dignity, respect and faced irreparable mental shock, therefore, she is entitled for damages. From the perusal of cross-examination it reveals that nowhere it was suggested to the plaintiff that the news was correct and was published after due care in good faith in the interest of public. It was also not suggested to the plaintiff that the news has not caused any mental torture to her. Non-cross-examination on material E facts amounts to admission. In their evidence the defendants have failed to prove that publication was correct and was published after due care in good faith in the interest of public. At the face of it the publication is defamatory and it exposes the plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule or tends to injure her in her profession or trade. In the case of Sufi M. Ishaque v. The Metropolitan Corporation Lahore (PLD 1996 SC 737) it was held that a person is entitled to claim damages for mental/ nervous shock and suffering where it is a natural and immediate result of the offending act complained. In the same judgment it was further held that person who suffers mental torture and nervous shock is entitled to recover damages. I therefore hold that false publication has caused mental torture and irreparable loss to the plaintiff.
14. Issue No,3: ' This issue has no relevancy with the matter in hand and no evidence has been led by both the parties and learned counsel have not addressed this issue.
15. Issues No,4: ' The plaintiff has succeeded to prove that the publication was not correct and is defamatory in nature and is laced with malice. The general damages were presumed to flow from a defamatory publication. The plaintiff though not leading evidence of special damages still entitled to general damages. There is no yard-stick to assess actual wrong caused to the plaintiff. There is also no hard and fast rule to grant general damages. The principle laid down in various judgments with regard to award of damages is that the amount though assessed must not appear to be punitive in nature or exemplary and while awarding damages theconscience of Court must be satisfied that damages awarded would, if not completely, at least satisfactorily compensate the aggrieved party.I, therefore, conclude that ends of justice would meet if the suit of the plaintiff be decreed in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 (Rupees five lac) only as general damages to be paid by the defendants jointly and severelly.
16. Issue No,5: Suit is decreed in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 and decree be prepared accordingly.