Law: Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)

Section: 3

Law: Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)

Section: 3

(a) Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)-------S. 3---Defamation---Application made to a person and authority for protection of one's own interest could not amount to defamation. (b) Defamation Ordinance (LVI of 2002)--- ----S. 3---Defamation---False statement---Ingredients---Claim of damages---Burden to prove---Accused, in the present case, had stated in evidence before the trial Court that allegations complained were false and could not be proved but beyond that nothing was said--Section 3 Defamation Ordinance, 2002 makes a false statement causing injury to the reputation of a person or to bring him in redicule, unjust criticism and dislike a defamation---Distinction in this context needs to be drawn between the statement, ,which is not proved and one which is explicitly found to be false for the purpose of Defamation Ordinance, 2002---All benefits, under criminal law are to be granted to an accused and the prosecution must establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt---Very strong burden of proving a statement to be false is to be discharged by the plaintiff in a suit for damages and the mere fact that it could not be proved, does not necessarily show that it was false--If such distinction is obliterated, every accused granted the maximum benefit of doubt may upon acquittal bring an action for defamation, which does not appear to be the intention of law. Arshad Jamal Siddiqui for Appellant. ORDER SABIHUDDIN AHMED, C.J.--- This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree of the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Karachi Central, dated 12-11-2005, whereby appellant's Suit No.1172 of 2002 was dismissed. 2. One of the principal grounds for dismissal of the suit appears to be that it was barred by limitation, which in such cases is six months from the date of publication or circulation of the defamatory material. From the contents of the plaint, it appears that the appellant was aggrieved by three applications, stated to be addressed by the respondent (1) to the S.P. Liaquatabad dated 29-7-2001, (2) to the S.H.O. Ajmer Nagri dated 7-8-2001 and (3) to the S.H.O. Nazimabad allegedly dated 3-8-2002. Indeed, no suit on the basis of the first two applications…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492