BALRAJ KHANNA & ORS. versus MOTI RAM

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 447 · Decided: 22-04-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BALRAJ IWANNA & ORS. 
v. 
MOTi RAM 
April 22, 1971 
07 
[C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] 
8 
Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), s. 499-Necessity of complainant 
stating -actual words used by accused-When arises. 
Codt of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898), ss. 202 and 203-luris-
dictiOJI of magistrate holding preliminary enqrary-Scope of. 
Practice and Procedure-Applicability of exceptions to s. 499 to a case 
-If may be considered at the preliminary stage. 
C 
. 
The respondent filed a complaint against the appellants under s. 500 
l.P.C. alleging that they made certain defamatory allegations against him. 
According to him the appellants passed a resolution suspending him from 
municipal service, that in the course of the discussion relating to the pas· 
sing of the resolution, all the appellants made wild and baseless allegations 
involving moral turpitude against the respondent, and after passing the 
resolution the appellants with the ulterior motive of maligning the respon· 
D 
dent, gave publicity to the resolution in the local newspapers with large cir· 
ailation. A report containing the allegations which was sent by tho Secre· 
tary of the Corporation to the Commissioner was given in evidence. 
The Magistrate dismissed the complaint under s. 203, Cr. P.C. on two 
grounds, namely, (1) there was no evidence on record as to which of the 
appollailts made which allegations against the respondent, and in the 
absence of such an important ingredient no prima facie case against any 
of the appellants could be said to have been made out, and (2) the resolu· 
tion passed by. the Standing Committee and the discussion proceding it 
were covered by the exceptions to s. 499, I.P.C. The sessions Judge dis-·· 
missed the revision of the complainant summarily. 
Tho High Court set aside the order of the Magistrate and directed 
further inquiry on the grounds that: (!) it could not be said that there 
was no evidence as to which member of the Standing Committee made al· 
legations against the respondent, as the evidence implicated all the members 
of the Standing Committee including the appellants in the charge of male· 
ing the defamatory allegations contained in the report and (2) the appellants 
were not protected by the Exceptions to •· 499. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD: (!) While it is desirable that the actual words •lated to have 
·been used by the accused which are alleged to be defamatory should be 
reproduced by the complainant, in cases where the words spoken are too 
many or the statements are too long, it will be the height of technicality to 
insist that tho actual words and the entire statements should be reproduced 
verbatim. The object of having the actual words before the court is to 
·enible it to consider whether tho words are defamatory. That purpoao 
.,.;n be served if the complainant is able to reproduce in his complaint 
or evidence, in a substantial measure, the words of imputation alleged 
to have been uttered. From the point of view of the accused also it is 
, 
G 
H 
448 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1971] SUPP. s.c.lt. 
necessary that the matters alleged to be defamatory in the complaint must 
be so stated as to enable them to know the nature of the allegations they 
have to meet. But a complaint cannot be thrown out on the mere ground that 
the actual words spoken had not been stated in the complaint. It is only 
if the case of a complainant is that each of the accused made different 
statemei;rts that it would be necessary for the complainant to specify the 
actual words spoken by each of the accused. 
[4578-F] 
In the present case, on the averments made in the complaint which 
refel'.8 to various matters referred to in the report, the complainant bad 
furnished in a substantial measure the words of imputation, whlch ac-
cording to him were defamatory. When the case of the complainant' was. 
that all the appellants made the statements referred to in the report. and· 
he was prepared to go to trial on that footing, the question of the com-
plainant stating the words alleged to have been used 
by the individ11al 
accused did not arise. [457G-H; 458B] 
English decisions dealing with libel, held not applicable on all fours. 
[457A·8] 
Sarai Chandra Das & Anr. v. State, A.I.R. 1952 Orissa 351, Krishna-
rao v. Firm Radhakisan Ramsahai & Anr., [1956] I.LR. Nag. 236, Em-
peror v. Col. Bholanath, 51 I.LR. 1929 All. 313, K. S. Namjtmdaiah v. 
Setti Chikka Thippanna, (1952] 
Cr. L

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.