The court further found that there had been no effort to obtain Dekare's version or verify the allegations before the report was published.A Vadodara court on Wednesday convicted Falgun Chimanbhai Patel, the editor-in-chief of Gujarati daily Sandesh, in a 1999 criminal defamation case arising from a report published in the newspaper about then Vadodara mamlatdar Gambhirsinh Dekare.The court awarded him 20 days of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 15,000.The Judicial Magistrate First Class court in Vadodara held Patel legally responsible as the editor of the newspaper and rejected his defence that he was based at the Ahmedabad office and had no direct involvement in the Vadodara edition.The case was initiated by Dekare over a Sandesh report published from Vadodara on September 28, 1999, alleging that it contained serious and defamatory allegations concerning his character and had damaged his reputation among members of the public, government officials, family and relatives.Dekare had, subsequently, issued a legal notice to the newspaper on September 29, 1999. According to the complaint, he alleged that the newspaper’s management did not provide a satisfactory response, following which he filed a criminal complaint against then resident editor Navin Chauhan and chief editor Falgun Patel.The complaint invoked Sections of the Indian Penal Code and further alleged that after the publication, he was threatened with further adverse reporting and warned that he could be removed from his position as Mamlatdar if he did not comply with demands.During the trial, Patel’s defence argued that he handled administrative responsibilities from the newspaper’s Ahmedabad headquarters and had no direct knowledge of the contents of the Vadodara edition. The defence also relied on an affidavit of the Vadodara resident editor in an attempt to place responsibility for the publication on the local editorial establishment.Story continues below this adThe defence further challenged the newspaper copy produced by the complainant as evidence, arguing that there was no proof that the copy had been purchased from an authorised vendor. Patel’s defence also relied on the “good faith and public interest” under Section 499 of the IPC.The magistrate rejected Patel’s arguments that his administrative role at the Ahmedabad office insulated him from liability. Referring to Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, the court noted that Patel’s name appeared as the editor of the newspaper and held that the declared editor carries legal responsibility for the material published in the relevant issue.The court also rejected the objection to the newspaper copy. It noted that the defence itself had proceeded on the basis that the report had been published in good faith and in public interest. The court treated that position as an admission of publication and held that the admitted fact did not require separate proof.On the question of good faith, the court found that the defence witnesses were not eyewitnesses to the events forming the basis of the report and that the material relied upon was hearsay. It also noted that the police station diary entry produced by the defence did not contain any reference to Dekare.Story continues below this adThe court further found that there had been no effort to obtain Dekare’s version or verify the allegations before the report was published.