ANWAR MANSOOR KHAN, J.--- The present suit has been filed for defamation and damages in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs).
2. The facts that arise out of the plaint are that the plaintiff is the director of the company namely M/s. Diamond Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., engaged in the business of real es:ate 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 plaintiff was arrested, suspected to be a link between illegal immigrants and some agents settled in U.S. With International Passports of Pakistan, Sirilanka, Iran and Bangladesh. The name of the plaintiff allegedly mentioned in newspaper report is "Hakim A.I". According to the plaintiff the report ,published by the defendants is contrary to the FIR lodged, which has caused the plaintiff's good- will and reputation, in the eyes of public at large to be tarnished by the publication of the said baseless story. It is stated in the plaint that a legal notice was given on 26.12.1990 to the defendants seeking a contradiction to be published after confirmation from the contents of the FIR bearing No. 691/1,990, dated 30.11.1990. According to the plaintiff the said contradiction never, appeared in the newspaper. In view of the above, the name of the plaintiff 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 plaintiff for some ulterior motives which gave rise to cause for claiming damages.
The plaintiff has sought damages to the extent of Rs.500,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs), from each 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 plaint has been filed stating that the publication was in the name of Hakim A.I whereas the plaintiff is not Hakim A.I but "Hakam A.I" and the plaintiff has not pleaded innuendo which lead to identification of the alleged libel to him. The defendants however, denied that harm has been caused to the plaintiff's reputation or good-will on account of the impugned
(sic) it is pleaded that the report was published in good faith and was in fact as fair comment on a matter of public interest and thereby no harm to reputation of the plaintiff was caused and that said story was not defamatory in any manner whatsoever, on the basis of the FIR lodged.
4. The following issues were framed:-
(i) Whether the impugned publication is referable 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, in the extent of liability of each the defendants?
(v) Relief.
5. As far as the first issues is concerned, I am convinced that the publication is referable to the plaintiff on account of the fact that the relationship of the plaintiff is caused through FIR which has been referred to by both the plaintiff and the defendants and that the name appearing as "Hakim A.I" and "Hakam A.I" could not matter as the incident remains the same. It is clear that the news report was published in relation to the same person.
6. Before I deal with issue No. 2 for cause of action, it will be appropriate to deal with issue No. 3 which relates to the entitlement, if any, of defamation and damages which is covered by issue No.
4. Incidentally in the issues, no issue has been framed in regards to whether the news report has caused any defamation or whether mere publication of a news report would be deemed to defamation which will entail the granting of damages. However, both the counsels argued this position as such, the issue is framed:
(1) ,Whether the news report published in newspaper daily "DAWN" English and daily "DAWN" Gujrati has caused any defamation to the plaintiff?
7. Mr. Zameeruddin, Advocate has argued that mere publication in the newspaper of an incident which, was unfair and is defamatory is sufficient, and there is no need for proving defamation specifically. He has referred the judgment of Dr. Q. M. Qarni Vs. Khalil-ur-Rehman and others (PLD 1975 Karachi 379) wherein the learned Judge observed: "In action for damages for libel it is not part of the plaintiff's duty to prove that the words complained of are 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. That the news-item refers to the plaintiff, though he is not named in it, is admitted by the defendants. The news item is per se defamatory."
8. Mr. Zameeruddin has referred to the case of Muhammad Ismail Vs. Dr. Afzal Mfrza (1999 CLC 958) and has referred to the observation of the learned Judge as follows:- ".... This gives a clue to the petitioner's personal hostility against respondent No. 1. That is why the ventured to have the above-quoted news-item published in the newspaper without verifying the truth. The news-item seen in the light of the petitioner's personal grievance against respondent No. 1 smacks of mala fide intention to defame him. In that book on "Tort" Winfield and following say:- "A statement which disparages a man in his reputation in relation to his office, profession, calling trade or business may be defamatory, e.g. The imputation of some quality which would be detrimental or the absence of some quality which is essential to the successful carrying on of his office, trade or profession, such as want of ability, incompetence and, of course, dishonest or fraudulent conduct."
The imputations made against respondent No. 1 tend to lower him in the' estimation of the right thinking people of the society generally. In an ' action for defamation regarding disparaging statements about any office, profession, calling or business of a person, it is not necessary to allege or prove special damage. It is sufficient to show that the spoken or written words are reasonably likely to injure a person in, his office, profession, calling, trade or business. In the case of Mushtaq Ahmed. Gurmani Vs. Z.A. Suleri and another (PLD 1958 (W.P.) Lah. 747, it was held:- "The law draws ho distinction in this respect between ordinary persons and those connected with journalism and it is clear that in law a journalist is bound to bestow the same amount of care and attention as anyone else. From the common sense point of view, it would appear that those who publish newspapers have to be more careful before publishing an imputation which on the face of it is defamatory because what a man says will be heard by few while what appears in a newspaper will be read by very many."
9. He has also referred to the case of Hussain Bibi Vs. Saleh Muhammad (PLD 1996 Karachi 50) and has read the definition of word "defamation" as under:- "Defamation is defined as publication of a statement which reflects on a person's reputation and tends to lower him/her in the estimation of right thinking members of the society generally or tend to rise in people a strong hatred, contempt ridicule "tending to shown and avoid".
10. According to him the publication having been made was sufficient to show that such was in fact to inform the plaintiff as, the same had no nexus with story as contained in the FIR.
11. Mr. Zia Makhdoom on the other hand has read the cross-examination of the plaintiff in which according to him the plaintiff has admitted the fact that the Editors had never met him nor there is any personal enmity between him and the publishers. He states, that the plaintiff has in his cross- examination said that the name in the report is the name of the plaintiff but there could be more than 1000 Hakim Alis in Karachi. According to him neither in the affidavit nor in the cross- examination has the plaintiff asserted as to how the news-item has affected or defamed him wherefore the defendant could be liable for any damages. According to him the said plaintiff had been arrested on account of the FIR bearing No. 691/90 which FIR, though the basis, has not been filed or exhibited by the plaintiff. The story had to be tallied with the FIR and the onus of which lay on the plaintiff. He has not been able to discharge this burden, that story contained in the newspaper is contrary to the contents of the FIR. However, in the remand report, it seems that there was raid at the car parking area KAP-II as a result of which 04 passports suspected having been tampered were recovered from the possession of the plaintiff. Such passports were seized and it has been mentioned in the remand report Ex-P-4/6 that "accused is required to be interrogated thoroughly being a notorious Racketeer of passports and Visas. At this pointation the holders of passports to be contacted and examined. The genuineness of the passport is to be verified. The instruments of forgery are to be recovered at the pointation of the accused and his other accomplices to be arrested."
12. According to Mr. Zia Makhdoom, the story that was published was also in respect of Racketeer of Visas, which is contained in the remand reports also. In the remand report of 5.12.1990 which is Ex.
P-4/7 similar remarks have also been mentioned that the accused is notorious Racketeer dealing trafficking/counterfeiting passports/USA Visas and sent a large number of Pakistanis to USA on forged documents/Visas for lacs of rupee". The news-items is more or less the same except, for some detail as regard the route and the manner by which the plaintiff used to sent the job seekers to the US.
13. It is the case of Mr. Zia Makhdoom that no person can succeed unless, he proves that the defamatory statement was not based on facts or at least near to those.
14. He has referred to Halsbury's Laws of England IVth Edition Volume 28, para 109 where it is stated that "It is for the defendant to prove that the occasion of publication is, one of the qualified privileged. To defeat the defence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant, in publishing the words COMPLAINED OF' was actuated by express malice". He refers to the statement of the plaintiff in cross-examination for that there is no enmity and in fact the plaintiff had not even known the Editors and Publishers.
15. From the arguments of the counsels, I am of the view that the plaintiffs have not been able to establish in any manner whatsoever' that the news-item was in any manner incorrect or that it was not a fair comment. From the arguments of Mr. Zia Makhdoom, it is apparent that the news was based on the incident that had occurred. No doubt as according to Mr. Zameer, the plaintiff had been exonerated from the charge, but it was initially what had occurred was reported by the defendants. Such news was required to be published as it is the matter of public interest for which in fact the newspapers are required to be vigilant. It had been held in numerous cases that publication and the newspapers are watchdogs. It is in fact the duty of the newspapers to report any incidence that may have happened with all fair comments. From the evidence, it is clear that it was not a case of misreporting at that stage. It is held that there is not a misreporting. Issues Nos. 2, 3-and 5 therefore, do not require any further decision. The suit, in the circumstances is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to cost