Vaidynathier Ramaswami JUDGMENT
P.B. Gajendragadkar, C.J.
1. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5 of 1965 - Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar, who is a citizen of India, serves as a Reporter on the Staff of the EnglishWeekly "Blitz" published in Bombay and edited by Mr. R. K. Karanjia. It appears that Mr. Krishnaraj M. D. Thackersey sued Mr. R. K. Karanjia (Suit No. 319 of 1960) on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court, and claimed Rs. 3 lakhs by way of damages for alleged malicious libel published in the Blitz on the 24th September, 1960, under the caption "Scandal Bigger Than Mundhra". This suit was tried by the Mr. Justice Tarkunde.
2. One of the allegations which had been made in the said article was to theeffect that China Cotton Exporters, of the which Mr. Thackersey was a partner,had obtained licences for import of art silk yarn on condition that the samewould be sold to handloom weavers only; and that in order to sell the said silkyarn in the black market with a view to realise higher profits, three bogushandloom factories were created on the paper and bills and invoices were madewith a view to create the impression that the condition on which the licenceshad been granted to China Cotton Exporters, had been complied with Mr.Thackersey's concern had thus sold the said yarn in the black-market andthereby concealed from taxation the large profits made in that behalf. Theseallegations purported to be based on the papers filed in Suits Nos. 997 and 998of 1951 which had been instituted by China Cotton Exporters against NationalHandlooms Weaving Works, Rayon Handloom Industries, and one Bhaichand G. Goda.The said Bhaichand G. Goda was alleged to have been the guarantor in respect ofthe transactions mentioned in the said suits.
3. The said Bhaichand Goda had, in the course of insolvency proceedingswhich had been taken out in execution of the decrees passed against him, madean affidavit which seemed to support the main points of the allegations made bythe Blitz in its article "Scandal Bigger Than Mundhra".
4. During the course of the trial, the said Bhaichand Goda was called as adefence witness by Mr. Karanjia. In the witness-box, Mr. Goda feigned completeignorance of the said transactions; and under the protection given to him bythe learned Judge who was trying the action, he repudiated every one of theallegations he had made against Mr. Thackersey's concern in the said affidavit.Thereupon, Mr. Karanjia applied for permission to cross-examine Mr. Goda andthe said permission was granted by the learned Judge. Accordingly, Mr. Godacame into to be cross-examined by Mr. Karanjia's counsel.
5. Later, during the course of further proceedings, it was discovered ........