' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.---The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12-9- 2001 and decree dated 22-9-2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in suit No,154 of 1991 (Hakim Ali v. Editor, Dawn English Newspaper and others) by which the suit of the appellant for defamation and damages in the sum of Rs,10,00,000 was dismissed.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present Appeal are that the appellant was the director of the company namely Messrs Diamond Estate (Pvt.) Limited, engaged in the business of real estate and-was alleged in a news item appearing in the daily 'DAWN' English of 5-12-1990 and daily 'DAWN' Gujrati of 6-9-1990 that the appellant was arrested, suspected to be a link between illegal immigrants and some agents settled in U.S. With International Passports of Pakistan, Srilanka, Iran and Bangladesh. The name of the appellant allegedly mentioned in newspaper report is 'Hakim Ali'.
According to the appellant the report published by the respondents is contrary to the F.I.R. Lodged, which has caused the appellant's goodwill and reputation, in the eyes of public at large to be tarnished by the publication of the said baseless story. It is stated that a legal notice was given on 26-12-1990 to the respondents seeking a contradiction to be published after confirmation from the contents of the F.I.R. Bearing No,691 of 1990 dated 30-11-1990. According to the appellant the said contradiction never appeared in the newspaper. In view of the above, the name of the appellant having been placed as a link in the illegal export of the job seekers abroad was a concocted story to defame, harass and tarnish the reputation of the appellant for some ulterior motives which gave rise to cause for claiming damages. The appellant had sought damages to the extent of Rs,500,000 from such publication namely the daily 'DAWN' English and daily `DAWN' Gujrati and has sought that the publisher also pay the same.
3. The written statement to the suit was filed stating that the publication was in the name of Hakim Ali whereas the appellant was not Hakim Ali but 'Hakim Ali' and the appellant had not pleaded innuendo which lead to identification of the alleged libel to him. The respondents, however, denied that any harm was caused to the appellant's reputation or goodwill on account of the impugned news report. It is pleased that the report was published in good faith and was in fact fair comment on a matter of public interest and thereby no harm to reputation of the appellant was caused and that said story was not defamatory in any manner whatsoever, on the basis of the F.I.R. Lodged.
4. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:--
(i) Whether the impugned publication is preferable to the plaintiff?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action against the defendant?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any damages, if so, to what extent?
(iv) What, if any, is the extent of liability of each of the defendants?
(v) Relief.
5. The appellant led evidence but the respondents did not do so. The learned single Judge, after going through the evidence, formed the opinion that the publication was in respect of the appellant. No finding was given on Issues Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in view of the finding given on following additional Issue:-- "Whether the news report published in newspaper daily `DAWN' English and daily 'DAWN' Gujrati has caused any defamation to the plaintiff?"
6. The additional issue was decided against the appellant. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.
7. We have heard the parties' advocates and perused the record of this case very carefully.
8. The learned Advocate for the appellant has argued that in the case of defamation against public functionaries and private persons the same is to be examined on different yardsticks; that the respondent did not lead any evidence; that the publication was based on investigation conducted by the respondent; and that the said investigation was false and the appellant has been defamed in the community. He has relied upon Wolston v. Reader's Digest Association, Inc.
No,78-5414, Mehmood Ali v. Network Television Marketing (Pvt.) Limited (PLD 2005 Karachi 399), Abdul Ghafoor v. Muhammad Hasan (SBLR 2006 SC 1616), Muhammad Sharif v. Nawab Din (PLD 1957 Lahore 283), Muhammad Ansar-ul-Islam v. Karachi Stock Exchange Limited, Karachi PLD 1975 Karachi 556 and Altaf Gauhar v. Wajid Shamsul Hasan PLD 1981 Karachi 515.
9. Conversely, the learned advocate for the respondents has stated that the appellant was required to prove express malice of the respondents against the appellant but no such fact has been proved by the appellant that the story published in the newspapers was based on the F.I.R.
Which was a public document; that the substance of libel is the sting of defamation and not the details; that the main story is based upon the F.I.R. Which has not been denied by the appellant; that the sting of the news was the trafficking of human resources through various modes; that the public had interest in the matter which was reported to save the public; and that there was no enmity between the appellant and the respondents as admitted by the appellant in the cross- examination. He has relied upon Majid Nazami v. Muhammad Rashid PLD 1996 Lahore 410, Moosa v.
Muhammad PLD 1968 SC 25, Muhammad Rashid v. Majid Nizami PLD 2002 SC 514, Majid Nazami v.
Muhammad Rashid PLD 1996 Lah. 410 and Bashir Ahmed v. Ahmad-ul-Haq Siddiqui 1985 SCMR 123.
10. We have given due consideration to the arguments and found that the parties have admitted that the source of news item was the F.I.R. Which was lodged on 30-6-1990 at Police Station Passport Cell, Karachi against the appellant with allegation that the appellant indulged in a business of trafficking and counterfeiting of passport/visa falling within the scope of offences punishable under section 6(1)(g)&(h) of Passports Act, 1974 read .With sections 420/468/471, P.P.C.
We have also gone through the news item and found that the said news item is based on the F.I.R.
And the applications moved by the Investigating Officer before the Magistrate for obtaining remands as is clear from the impugned judgment. Under Article 85 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 if a public officer maintains a record then it would become the public record. The First Information Report recorded by the police officer under section 154,Cr.P.C. Is recorded by him in the discharge of his official duty by virtue of Article 49 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, therefore, it is a public document.
11. It is pointed out that if an offence is committed, it is committed against the society apart from the concerned individual, therefore, the public, has interest in the offence. The news item appears to be published for the public's beneficial purpose so as to save them from the persons who are in the business of trafficking and protect them from being deceived.
12. The expression "public purpose" as pointed out by Mahajan, J. In State of Bihar v. Sir Kameshwar Singh AIR 1952 SC 252 at page 311 is not capable of precise definition and has not a rigid meaning. It can only be defined by a process of judicial inclusion and exclusion. However a broad test has been formulated by Judicial decisions, and it is that--- "Whatever furthers the general interest of the community as opposed to the particular interest of the individual must be regarded as a public purpose."
13. The basic concept underlying the expression "public purpose" is general interest of the community. The test which has, therefore, to be applied is whether the purpose is one which is primarily and predominantly one for the general interest of the community or it is mainly or primarily to serve the interest of a few individuals. Is the emphasis on general benefit of the community or is it on the benefit of some specified individuals? If it is the former, it would be a public purpose but not so, if it is the latter. The said test is the only way in which a line can be drawn to distinguish a public purpose from a private purpose. The difference between the two can become recognizable and meaningful only if this interpretation is accepted. And this interpretation is clearly borne out by the classic statement of "public purpose" given by Batchelor, J., and approved by the Privy Council in Hamabai Framjee Petit v. Secretary of State for India AIR 1914 PC 20, where it was said that-- "the phrase, whatever else it may mean must include a purpose, that is an object or aim, in which the general interest of the community, as opposed to the particular interest of individuals, is directly and vitally concerned."
14. As already pointed out that the purpose of publication was primarily and predominantly one of the general interest of the community, therefore, the publication was made for the beneficial consumption of public in order to save them from being deceived.
15. The question of rights of persons who occupy the public office and individual persons in respect of defamation is a completely different subject which does not attract in the present circumstances of the case when the news item is based on a public document which is the property of public and public have every right to know the contents of the public documents viz. F.I.R. Admittedly, there is no enmity between the appellant and the respondents or any enmity was suggested. There is no malice on the part of the respondents to publish the news item. The name of the appellant was mentioned in the F.I.R. As an accused person of the offence of trafficking and possessing forged passports which was lodged by the Inspector of Police on behalf of the State.
The sting or the main point of the news item was based on the F.I.R. Therefore, by publishing such news item which was already known to section of public would not come within the ambit of defamation. No doubt, some more details have been mentioned in the news item about the modus operandi of the commission of the offence but the gist of the said details is also human trafficking.
16. After considering the material available on the record we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment does not require any interference, therefore, the appeal is dismissed.