Thus, the ultimate credit is being given to the author of the book – who may or may not be connected with the preparation of the video and uploading of the same. 28. The contents of the video are not being repeated in this judgment, in order to ensure that the same is not further published, as rightly contented by Mr. Nigam. There is no doubt that reading of the transcript, or a viewing of the video clearly attempts to give an impression to the viewers that the Plaintiffs have been involved in various murders, financial irregularities, misuse of animal parts, etc. However, all this information, as per the video, has been derived not independently, but as a summary of the book itself. Thus, the judgment in CM (M) 556/2018 dated 29th September, 2018 clearly becomes relevant. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the ld. Single Judge, after considering the law of defamation, including the balance between the Article 21 and Article 19(1)(a) has concluded that the content of the book is not justified. The implicit allegations have been held to be prima facie untrue. The ld. Single Judge has arrived at the following findings: ―139. In the instant case the avowed contentions of the petitioner have been that as regards the publication in ―Chapter 16 Mystery 2 : The Guru‘s Disappearance‖ in the BOOK to implicitly state that the petitioner was somehow involved or complicit in the disappearance of his Guru Shanker Dev Ji and that further he, the petitioner having used his influence with the Government was able to scuttle the investigation which was not handled in a fair and transparent manner, coupled with the factum that the said publication came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 29.07.2017 after the Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI)/ACJM(I) Dehradun vide order dated CS (OS) 27/2019 Page 19 of 76