Defamation Case – Delhi Court Sentences Medha Patkar to 5 Months Imprisonment in Case filed by VK Saxena
New Delhi. Saket Court sentenced Medha Patkar to 5 months simple imprisonment in the criminal defamation case lodged against her by Vinai Kumar Saxena in 2001.
Court said that excessive punishment is not being imposed on Patkar looking at her age and medical ailments. The judge said that the sentencing will remain suspended for 30 days.
Metropolitan Magistrate Raghav Sharma of Saket Court further asked Patkar to pay Rs. 10 lakh compensation to Saxena for the damage caused to him.
Patkar was convicted by the court on May 24 for the offence of criminal defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Saxena filed the case against Patkar in 2001. He was then was the Chief of Ahmedabad-based NGO National Council for Civil Liberties. He filed the case against Patkar for defaming him in a press note dated November 25, 2000, titled “true face of patriot”.
In the press note, Patkar said “VK Saxena, one who is pained by the Hawala transactions himself came to Malegaon, praised NBA and give a cheque of Rs. 40,000. Lok Samiti naively and promptly sent the receipt and the letter, which shows honesty and good record keeping then anything else. But the cheque could not be encashed and got bounced. On enquiry, the bank reported the account does not exist.”
Medha Patkar said that Saxena was a coward and not a patriot.
After filing of complaint in 2001, an MM court in Ahemdabad took cognizance of offence under section 500 of IPC and issued process under section 204 of Cr.P.C against Patkar. On February 03, 2003, the complaint was received by a CMM Court in the national capital pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court. In 2011, Patkar pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
While convicting her, the court had said that Patkar’s actions were deliberate and malicious, aimed at tarnishing Saxena’s good name and have caused substantial harm to his standing and credit.
It observed that Patkar’s statements, calling Saxena a coward and not a patriot, and alleging his involvement in hawala transactions, were not only defamatory per-se but also crafted to incite negative perceptions.
It had further said that Patkar failed to provide any evidence to counter these claims or to show that she did not intend or foresee the harm these imputations would cause.
Furthermore, the judge had concluded that Patkar’s decision to label the complainant as a “coward” and “not a patriot” was a direct attack on his personal character and loyalty to the nation.
