PESHAWAR, Aug 11: The Peshawar district and sessions judge, Hayat Ali Shah, has ruled that under the Defamation Ordinance 2002 only that statement could be termed defamatory which is intentionally made to injure reputation of a person.

The judge observed: "The definition of defamatory statement would be that statement which is with intention to deceive the third person and publication of which results into injuries to reputation of the person against whom it is directed or make the people laugh at him or extremely dislike him or the people avoid him."

The court added that a defamatory statement would mean a false statement, which would result into the afore-mentioned negative effects on the person against whom the statement was directed.

The observations were made by the court in its detailed judgment in the first case filed in Peshawar under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002. The case was filed by Dr Mohammad Tahir, in charge of the plastic surgery unit of the Hayatabad Medical Complex against a report published in Dawn.

The plaint was dismissed a few days back, with the observation that the report filed in the newspaper by its correspondent Ashfaq Yusufzai did not amount to defamation as the plaintiff could not prove that the contents of the report were incorrect and that it had been filed with the intention to defame him.

The plaintiff had claimed that the story "Plastic surgery unit working without specialists" published on September 1, 2003, was defamatory and amounted to lowering his honour amongst his colleagues relating to medical profession in particular and public at large in general. He had filed the plaint for recovery of Rs5 million as special damages while Rs50,000 as compensatory damages against the defendant newspaper.

The judge, Hayat Ali Shah, ruled that under the definition of defamation given in the ordinance, there are various ingredients which should be proved by the plaintiff.

THESE INGREDIENTS ARE: statement should be false; or it must injure the reputation of a person; or lower him in the estimation of others or tend to reduce him to ridicule, unjust criticism, dislike, contempt or hatred.

The judge observed: "If we see the whole statement first, it is not totally false and secondly it does not seem to have been published with intention to deceive someone because it is a known fact that the IBP (Institution Based Practice) was a problem against which there was resentment in the doctors community."

The court observed that the impugned statement was not defamatory and so the plaintiff had got no cause of action. It was added that the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence with respect to malafide or malice of the defendant.

The judge observed that the report was not against the person of the plaintiff as it referred to the effects of the IBP on the plastic surgery unit of the Hayatabad Medical Complex and most part of the statement was true and was admitted on the record.

The court further observed that the plaintiff had admitted that the incharge of the plastic surgery unit had resigned from the job, but he denied the fact that he had resigned due to the IBP. The court added that in the absence of any other plea or fact it should be presumed that the incharge had resigned due to the IBP.