Ali Akbar Qureshi, J:- This Regular First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, whereby the suit filed by the respondent to recover an amount of Rupees One Crore on account of damages was decreed to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs).
2. The facts as averred in the record, are that the respondent/plaintiff lodged a suit for recovery of Rupees One Crore as damages under the provisions of Defamation Ordinance, 2002, on the grounds, that the respondent belongs to a respectable religious family of Taunsa, having large number of devotees; the appellants/defendants who are owners of a weekly magazine, namely, "Voice of Taunsa" published scandalous news in their weekly magazine with the intention to extract money; the appellants/defendants in the magazine of April, published a news item with contemptuous title of "Pir of Dhori" which is in fact a deliberate attempt of the appellants/defendants to disrepute the plaintiff's family; the weekly magazine was circulated in other several districts of the province and because of this, the honour, dignity and reputation of the respondent/plaintiff were seriously damaged and the respondent/plaintiff suffered mental agony and torture. A mandatory notice under Section 8 of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002 was issued to the appellants/defendants to pay Rupees One Crore on account of damages, but no reply was made, and remained un-rebutted, thus stood proved.
3. The suit was contested by the appellants/defendants by controverting the contents of the plaint and claimed, that the news published in magazine depicts true situations, and nothing has been published which is against the record.
4. Learned trial Court out of the pleadings, framed as many as seven issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and finally decreed the suit to the extent of Rs.500,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs).
5. Learned counsel for appellants contends, that the appellants who are owners of the magazine, are not responsible as the news was published by the reporter of the magazine and further submitted, that learned trial Court failed to appreciate the record and the law and without appreciating the record, passed the decree which is not sustainable in law. Learned counsel, during the course of arguments, fairly submitted that although the news was published in the magazine owned by the appellants, but subsequently, an apology was also published in the same magazine, therefore, it is sufficient to show the bona fide of the appellants. Also contended, that there was no mala fide in publishing the material as the same was provided by a lady, namely, Taj Bibi (DW-1) who is aggrieved of the acts done by the respondent.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings recorded by learned trial Court, and submitted, that the damages amount be enhanced in view of the facts of the case.
When confronted, that as to whether any appeal has been filed by the respondent, learned counsel submitted, that no appeal has been filed by the respondent.
7. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
8. It is not denied, as evident from the record, that a news which on the face of it, is defamatory and scandalous, was published in the weekly magazine owned by the appellants, and subsequently, an apology was also published. The publication of the apology is sufficient proof, that the scandalous material was published by the appellants and now, it is to be seen as to whether the material supplied to the appellants by the lady was probed into or any investigation was conducted by the appellants to meet with the requirements and parameters of an ideal journalism. When it was confronted to learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel could not refer any material from the record in this regard. This type of the illegality and willful negligence on part of the appellants cannot be overlooked and left unattended, which is not only against the law applicable on the case, but also the unwritten norms, values and conventions of at least a fair reporting and ideal journalism. Further, this type of the negligence, which is otherwise mandatory, is so fatal which ruins the life of a person or family and sometimes may cause a risk to life. There are many examples, even reported in the press, when because of this type of the news published without mandatory inquiry, aggrieved person committed suicide. Therefore, it can safely be observed, that the appellants published the material against the respondent without establishing the veracity of the news item or material, therefore, it is extreme example of yellow and irresponsible journalism.
9. There is another aspect of the case which depicts from the record, that the appellants not only published baseless and defamatory material against the respondent, but there are also other innocent people against whom defamatory material was published who lodged F.I.R. and filed civil suits for damages on the same issue. Some of the civil suits as mentioned in the record, have been decreed against the appellants.
10. The aforesaid facts which are based on documentary evidence including the judicial record, show that the appellants are habitual to publish such type of the defamatory and scandalous news items against different people to extract money, therefore, learned trial Court rightly reached to the conclusion, that the appellants are liable to be dealt with under the provisions of the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, and finally awarded damages on account of publishing the defamatory and scandalous material without probing into the matter.
11. There is another most important fact which requires adjudication, that the newspaper owners like the appellants, claim if someone brought them in the Court of law, that an apology has been issued in the newspaper. Needless to mention, that the apology always published of few lines and in the corner, without publishing the scandalous and defamatory material in detail alongwith the apology and normally public-at-large/readers of newspapers do not even read the apology, therefore, the apology published by the appellants in the magazine is totally insufficient and lame excuse and not acceptable in law. Even otherwise, the apology published by the appellants in this magazine cannot restore the dignity and honour of a person or family and it is not possible for an aggrieved person to show the apology to every person known to him or public-at-large, therefore, this plea of the appellants is hardly sustainable in law. Anyhow in future, the publisher and newspaper owner shall publish the apology, if required or ordered, giving the same place and space in the newspaper alongwith defamatory material earlier published by them, so that the public-at-large could know the defamatory material as well as the apology tendered by the publisher or the newspaper owner.
12. It is proved on record through the evidence, that the news item published by the appellants was highly defamatory, scandalous and example of irresponsible journalism, so the quantum of damages awarded by learned trial Court could have been much higher, if the respondent had filed the cross appeal or cross objection but anyhow the findings recorded by learned trial Court are affirmed.
13. The evidence adduced by the appellants was perused during the course of arguments but there is nothing in the evidence to contradict the claim of the respondent. Reliance is placed on MUDASSER IQBAL BUTT v. SHAUKAT WAHAB and others (PLD 2006 Lahore 557).
14. In view of above, we see no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment delivered by learned trial Court, thus this appeal has no force, and is dismissed with no order as to costs.