SUKRA MAHTO versus BASDEO KUMAR MAHTO & ANR.

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 02-04-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

329 
SUKRA MABTO 
v. 
BASDEO KUMAR MAHTO & ANR. 
Aprr1 2, 1971 
[C. A. VAIDIAUNGAM AND A. N. RAY, JJ.J 
Indian Penal Coie, s. 499 Ninth Exception-Charge of defamation-
T o come within Ninth Exception aacused must prove that he made state-
'nent in good faith or in protection of his own interest or someone else's 
intert'st-lngredients of good faith. 
There was a proceeding under s. 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code 
between the respondents and the appellant regarding some agricultural 
land in Bihar. The land was recorded in the names of the two brothers 
Karma Ahir and Faizu Ahir. 
The appellant was the grandson of the 
fornlcr. The first respondent and his brother claimed the land as sons of 
Falzu Ahir by his second wife. Both the parties were called upon to show 
cause. The appellant in showing cause described the first respondent and his 
brother as illegltimat'e sons of Faizu Ahir having been born of a concubine. 
A complaint was filed against the appellant for having made the above 
defamatory statement. The appellant pleaded not guilty. The trial magis-
trate held that the statement in question was false and defamatory and con-
victed the appellant under •· 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The Addi-
tional Judicial Commissioner upheld the conviction. 
The Patna High 
Court dismissed the appellants application in revision. 
In appeal before 
this Court by special leave, the question for consideration was 1.\<hether 
the appellant could claim the benefit of the Ninth Exception to s. 499 of 
the Indian Penal Code. 
HELD: The ingredients of the Ninth Exception are first that the im-
putation must be in good faith, secondly the imputation must be for pro-
tection of the person making it or of any other person or for the public 
good. These are all questions of fact. [3320] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
The person alleaing good faith has to establish as a fact that he 
F 
made enquiry before he made the imputation and he has to give reasons 
and facts to indicate that he acted with due care and attention and was 
•ati&fied tba! the imputation was true. Tho proof of the truth of the state-
ment is not an element of the Ninth Exception as of the First Exception 
to s. 499. In the Ninth Exception the person making the imputation has 
to sub!;tantiate that his enquiry was a attended with due care and attention 
and he was thus satisfied that the imputation was true. The accent is on 
tho enquiry, care and objective and not subjective satisfaction. [332F-G] 
G 
Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1965] 3 S.C.R. 235 and C/Jaman 
Lal v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1372, relied on. 
Jn the present case .there was no evidence to show that before making 
the imputation the appellant made any enquiry in good faith. The appel-
lant had not shown due care and attention before making the imputation. 
H 
By reason of the findings of fact that the appellant did not ac! with care 
and caution and secondly that the appellant was related to the respondent 
and thirdly that no enquiry was made by the appellant, the appellant could 
not claim good faith. [333C) 
338 
SUPRIME OOURT lllPORTS 
[1971] SUPP. s.c.R. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Just because a proceeding is pending it will not be open to a p«BOR 
to impute the statements of the nature in the present case. Thore was no 
qucsllon of title involved. Even if title is involved that by itself wll not 
entitle a person to make a defamatory statement and then take tho plea. 
that it was for. the protection of interest. Protection of interest of persoa 
making the imputation will have to be established by showing that the 
imputation was itself the protection of interest of the person makiqg 
it~ 
In the present case the question was who was in possession of land. 
It 
would not be open to a person to deny or resist possession in proceeding 
under s. 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code by hurling defamatory in-
vectives and then claim the benefit of protection of interest. [3330] 
The appeal must accordingly fail. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 53 
of 1968. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
October 30. 1967 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision 
No. 1734 of 1967. 
Ganpat Rai, for the appellant 
D. Goburdhun and Ram Das Chadha, for respondent No. I. 
D. Goburdhun, for the respondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered 
Ray, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the Judg-
ment and order of the Patna High Court dated 30 October,

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