LexCHAMAN LAL versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c () E F G H CHAMAN LAL v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB March 6, 1970 [A. N. RAY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.J 913 Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 499 and 500-Plea of justification under exception.\· 1, 8 and 9 of s. 499-Scope of-When docu111ents privileged, The appellant, who was the President of the local Municipal Com· mittee. was convicted under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code on a complaint that he had made defamatory remarks in respect of the charac- ter of the complainant, a Nurse attached to the Civil Dispensary, at a public meeting; that he wrote a letter to the Civil Su'rgeon which con- tained defamatory statements against he•r character and also repeated the defamatory allegations before the Civil Surgeon. The appellant's plea of justification under exc~ptions 1, 8 and 9 of s. 499_ I.P.C. was rejected by the trial court and his appeal to the High Court was also dis· missed. On appeal to this Court HELD : On the facts, the appeal must be dismissed. In order to come within the First Exception to s. 499 it has to be established that what has been imputed concerning· the respondent is true and the publication of the imputation is for the public good. The onus of plroving these two ingredients was on the appellant but he tota1ly ~ailed to establish these pleas. On the contrary, the evidence showed that the imputation concerning the respondent was not true but was motivated by animus of the appell'111t against the r<Spondent. [917 HI The Eighth Exception to s. 499 indicates that an accusation in good faith against the person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject matter of the accusation is not defamation, but in the present case there was utter lack of gl?od faith in the accusation. Good faith 'requires care and caution and prudence in the background of context and circumstances. The position of the per- son making the· imputation will regulate the standard of care and caution. 1918 C] The Ninth Exception provides that if the in1putation is made in good faith for the protection of the person making it or for another person or for the public good it is not defamation. Apart from the Jack of good faith there was no evidence to support the plea that the imputation was for the public good. Furthermore the interest has to be real and legiti- mate when communication is made in protection of the interest of the person makin2 it. [918 DJ The plea that the Jetter to the Civil Surgeon was privileged because as the President of the local Municipal Committee the appellant had to Mite to, the Civil Sµrgeon about the work of the .cur.1plaint w~s not taken at the trial and there was no,evidence to support it. Purthi~rinorc, the privilege extends only to a communication upon the subject with resM pect to which the privilege extends and the privilege can be claimed in exer .. cise of the right or safeguard of the interest which creates the privilege. In the present case the concurrent findings of fact repel any suggestion 914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1970) 3 S.C.R. of pirotection of the interest of the appellant in making the insinuations A against the respondent contained in the letter fom1ing the subject matter of the complaint. [918 G] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 1967. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated B May 26, 1967 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Revision No. 675 of 1965. R. L. Kohli, for the appellant. Harbans Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 26 May, 1967. The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to three months simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 1000 and in default thereof a further simple imprisonment for three months. The case started on a complaint filed by Bishan Kaur on 23 October, 1963. The complaint was that the appellant Chaman Lal who was at that time Pre.sident of Municipal Committee, Sujanpur in the District of Gurdaspur had made defamatory remarks against her character at a public meeting held at Sujan- p_ur on 29 July, 1962 aild that he further wrote a letter on 2 August, 1962 to the Civil Surgeon, Gurdaspur which contained defamatory statements against her character
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.