Jharkhand HC Upholds Acquittal of Prabhat Khabar Reporter and College Principal in Section 500 IPC Defamation Case

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a complainant's challenge to acquittal of a newspaper reporter and college principal convicted for defamation over a news item about alleged admission irregularities.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, comprising Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Justice Arun Kumar Rai, on 29 August 2026 dismissed an acquittal appeal filed by Bimlendu Narayan Ball, the Head Clerk of A.S. College, Deoghar. Ball had sought restoration of convictions under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the college's then-Principal, a reporter, and an editor of Prabhat Khabar. The Sessions Judge, Deoghar had set aside those convictions in 2011. The High Court found no basis to interfere, holding that the news item in question merely reported what a police officer had stated and described standard institutional procedures — neither of which amounted to criminal defamation.

The Complaint and the News Item

Ball filed a private complaint case, later registered as P.C.R. Case No. 748 of 2005, alleging that Prabhat Khabar had published a news item falsely stating that he had been suspended and that an FIR had been lodged against him during the tenure of Dr. H. Narayan, the then-Principal of A.S. College, Deoghar. Ball claimed to have served the college for 36 years without blemish and contended that the publication lowered his reputation in society and caused him considerable mental stress.

The news item, marked as Exhibit 3 during trial, reported that SDPO Vipul Shukla had stated that forged certificates were submitted in connection with admissions to B.A. and B.Com. streams and that Ball and certain others were found responsible for such irregular admissions. The item further included a statement attributed to respondent No. 2 — Dr. Nageshwar Sharma, the then-Principal — that all certificates at the college are verified by the Head Clerk and that if any irregularity is detected, the Head Clerk is held accountable. The report also referred to a prior FIR alleging irregularities in the admission of 100 students.

After enquiry, cognizance was taken under Section 500 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On completion of evidence, their statements were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and they denied the allegations.

The Trial Court Conviction and the Sessions Court Acquittal

The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Deoghar — Smt. Sanjeeta Srivastava — convicted respondents No. 2, 3, and 4 under Section 500 IPC on 30 June 2010 and sentenced each to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Respondents No. 2 to 4 challenged those convictions separately in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 2010 before the Sessions Judge, Deoghar. On 26 September 2011, the Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence. Ball then filed Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 15 of 2015 before the High Court.

Arguments Before the High Court

Mr. Jayant Kumar Pandey, appearing for Ball, argued that the accused persons had produced no evidence showing that Ball had actually gone to jail in any case instituted against him during Dr. H. Narayan's tenure. He contended that the false news item had lowered Ball's reputation and that the Sessions Court failed to properly consider the evidence on record before acquitting respondents No. 2 to 4.

Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, for respondent No. 2 (Dr. Nageshwar Sharma), submitted that the news item was published at the instance of the SDPO and that Dr. Sharma had merely described the procedure for verification of certificates and the accountability of the Head Clerk — a statement that could not be treated as defamatory.

Mr. Deepak Kr. Bharti, appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4 — the ex-Editor and the Reporter of Prabhat Khabar — raised several submissions. He informed the court that respondent No. 3, the ex-Editor, had died during the pendency of the appeal. He argued that the complaint was filed with considerable delay and no reasons were assigned for that delay. He also pointed out that the newspaper itself had not been made a party and that no vicarious liability could be fastened on the reporter or the editor on that basis. As regards the reporter specifically, Mr. Bharti submitted that the publication of a news item falls outside the purview of a reporter's function and that criminal liability cannot attach to a reporter merely for reporting what the SDPO stated.

How the Division Bench Reasoned

The Division Bench analysed the content of Exhibit 3 in detail. On the statement of respondent No. 2, the court held that Dr. Sharma had merely described institutional procedure — that certificates are verified by the Head Clerk and that the Head Clerk bears accountability for any irregularity. The bench found that this part of the news item “is not at all defamatory as it merely touches upon the conduct of the Head Clerk.” No finding of actual guilt was attributed to Ball in that portion of the report.

On the position of respondent No. 4, the Reporter, the bench noted that he had simply published what the SDPO had stated. Ball had not filed any case of defamation against the SDPO, a fact the Sessions Court had also taken note of. The bench agreed that the publication of a news item is beyond the purview of a reporter and that criminal liability under Section 500 IPC cannot be fastened upon him for reproducing a police officer's public statement.

The court did not find that the Sessions Court had failed to consider the materials on record. Ball's principal grievance — that the news item falsely stated he had gone to jail — was not enough, on the evidence and the content of the publication, to revive convictions that the first appellate court had set aside after examining the same record. The bench found no reason to disturb that conclusion.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 15 of 2015 on 29 August 2026. The acquittal of respondents No. 2, 3, and 4 by the Sessions Judge, Deoghar on 26 September 2011 stands confirmed. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, were closed.