SOHAN LAL v. STATE — 1960 DIGILAW 278 (ALL)

KAILASH PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THOSE are three connected cases two appeals and one revision which arise from the judgment dated 8th October, I960 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mattuira. Appeal No. 1943 of 1960 has been filed by Sohan Lal Sharma, a practising Lawyer of Mathura, who has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge Under Section 500. P. C. and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to simple imprisonment for vn days. Appeal No. 62 of 1961 has been filed by Narendra Mitra, editor, printer and publisher of a newspaper called nai Lahar. He has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge under Sees. 501 and 502, IPC and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50/- under each count. In default of payment of fine he has been ordered to undergo simple Imprisonment for seven days. The Criminal Revision has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh with the prayer /that the sentences passed on the accused be enhanced. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that between Z7-3- 1955 and 284-1957, K. B. Saksena, tahsildar was the consolidation officer of Baldeo Circle in Mathura district. In the issue of 28-4-1956 of the newspaper nai Later1 there appeared an article containing defamatory matter. Sohan Lal Sharma contributed the article and Narendra Mitra printed and published it in the said newspaper. The Article contained matters defamatory of K. B. Saksena. The original1 article is exhibit Ka. 4 and it admittedly bears trie signatures of Sohan Lal Sharma, The complaint was file. Under Section 198-B Cr. PC ( 3 ) BOTH the appellants pleaded not guilty and denied the charges framed against them. Sohan Lal sharma stated that the article was signed by him, but he denied that In sent It to Narendra Mitra for publication In Nai Lahar. He further stated that he could not say how it was published. He also stated that the matter contained in the article was not defamatory and the contents of the article were entirely true and he has been prosecuted only because he was opposed to corruption rampant in the department of Consolidation of Holdings/ ( 4 ) NARENDRA Mitra did not deny the publication of the article in his newspaper. He admitted that a short note above the article was his own. He admitted that a short note above the article was his own. He also stated that Sohan Lal Sharma had given it to him for publication in the newspaper and the contents of the article were, so far as be knew, true. ( 5 ) SEVEN witnesses were produced in support of the prosecution case and sixteen witnesses were called is defence. ( 6 ) THE Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence convicted and sentenced the appellants as rationed above. The appellants have, therefore, filed thess appeals against their conviction and sentences and to contention on behalf of the State is that the punishment awarded to the appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge is too meagre and inadequate. The prayer, therefore, on behalf of the State is for enhancement of the sentences passed on the appellants. ( 7 ) THE contention of the appellants that the allega-tions made in the article against K. B. Saksena are sot defamatory, is not correct. The article details many Irregularities of the consolidation department and the harassment caused to the public by its officials. It ends with the allegation that the consolidation officer amassed a tidy amount by way of bribe. There can be no doubt that the imputations of bribe are calculated to harm the reputation of the consolidation officer and are, therefore, automate of him. ( 8 ) ANOTHER contention of the appellants is that the complaint, on which the Additional Sessions judge took cognizance of the offence, was bad in law inasmuch as the provisions of Section 198-B Cr. PC were not complied with, It was pointed out in support of the contention that the complaint was signed by K. B. Saksena as complainant, while Section 198-B requires that the complaint should be ,in writing and should be made by the public prosecutor. The original complaint is on record. It Is correct that K. B. Saksena had signed it purporting to be the complainant, but It also bears the signatures of the Public Prosecutor. An order dated 27-10-1956 made by the Sassiow Judge on the back of the complaint shows that the cow plaint was filed by mr. Haveli Ram, public prosecutor at the house of the Judge at 5. 45 P. M. Mr. Haveli Ram also filed a telegram of government sanctioning the , prosecution of the accused. An order dated 27-10-1956 made by the Sassiow Judge on the back of the complaint shows that the cow plaint was filed by mr. Haveli Ram, public prosecutor at the house of the Judge at 5. 45 P. M. Mr. Haveli Ram also filed a telegram of government sanctioning the , prosecution of the accused. The Judge directed that the complaint was to be put 4jp on 2940-1956 for orders. Mr. Haveli ram seems to have appended his signature to this order in token of the receipt of its information. The fact is, therefore, established that the complaint was filed by the public prosecutor. Section 198-B does not require that the complaint should be signed by the public prosecutor. What it requires is that the complaint should be in writing and it should be made by the public prosecutor. The expression made evidently means made to the Court, Here the complaint was in writing and it was made to the court by the public prosecutor by. presenting it to the Judge. The fact that the complaint was signed by K. B. Saksena consolidation officer, will not detract from its being made by the public prosecutor. complaint, as defined in Clause (h) of Section 4 cr. PC means the allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate With a view to his taking action under the Code, that some person whether known or unknown, has committed. an offence. For prosecution for defamation against public servants in rasped of their conduct in the discharge of public functions, a special provision is made in the Cr. PC that the complaint is to be made to a court of Session and not to magistrate. With this difference the expression complaint in Section 198-B means the same as defined in Clause (h) of Section 4. The essential element of complaint is to make allegations to a court with a view to its taking action under the Cr. PC As the allegations can be oral, it is clear that the making of a complaint does not imply its being signed by the complainant. In our view making means bringing to the notice of. ( 9 ) SECTION 198-B however requires1 that the complaint should be in writing. PC As the allegations can be oral, it is clear that the making of a complaint does not imply its being signed by the complainant. In our view making means bringing to the notice of. ( 9 ) SECTION 198-B however requires1 that the complaint should be in writing. The complaint in question is in writing and it was presented to a Sessions Judge by the public prosecutor of mathura with a view that the Sessions Judge may take action thereon against the- persons who were alleged in the complaint to have -committed the offence of defaming the public servant. The complaint was, therefore, made by the public prosecutor and the provisions of Section 198-B were duty complied with. ( 10 ) IT was next contended on behalf of the appellants that the complaint was time barred as it was not filed within six months of the committing of the alleged offence of defamation. ( 11 ) SUB-SECTION (4) Section 198-B, Cr. PC lays down that no court of session shall take cognizance of an offence under Sub-section (1), unless the complaint is made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. The complaint in question was filed, 9s will appear from the Judges order on its back, on 27-10-1956. The article containing defamatory matter was published in Nai Lahar on 284-1956. It was the appellant warendra Mitra who was the publisher of the newspaper. He therefore committed the offence on 28-4-1956 and the complaint against him is certainly within time. ( 12 ) THE contention of Sohan Lai Sharma is two-fold. His first contention is that he never sent the article to Narendra Mitra for publication in Nai Lahar and secondly, It it be established that he sent the article for publication, it must have been sent before 28-4-1956, and so the iffence, if any was committed by him before 28-4-19sb and the complaint against him would be time-barred. ( 13 ) THE essence of the offence of defamation is we; intention to harm reputation, and that necessarily requires publicity to be given to the imputation. It may be that Sohan Lai Sharma once gave publicity when he sent the article to the publisher of Nai Lahar. ( 13 ) THE essence of the offence of defamation is we; intention to harm reputation, and that necessarily requires publicity to be given to the imputation. It may be that Sohan Lai Sharma once gave publicity when he sent the article to the publisher of Nai Lahar. He again committed the offence when the article was published in the newspaper at his instance and the publication in the paper gave wider publicity to the defamatory allegations, Sohan Lal Sharma, therefore, committed the offence on 28-4-193b if the article was published at his instance. The question, therefore, arises if Sohan lal Sharma sent this article for publication. ( 14 ) THE original of the article is Ex. Ka. 4. In his examination Under Section 364 Cr. PC Sohan lal Sharma admitted that it was signed by him. He further admitted this fact in his deposition when he examined himsalf as a defence witness. He is D. W. 16. When he was questioned bow ex. Ka. 4 reached Narendra Mitra, he could not offer any explanation. He merely stated that he could not say hew it reached Narendra Mitra. He further stated that he did not make any attempt to find out how Narendra Mitra got the article Ex. Ka. 4. Sohan Lal Sharma did not suggest that ex. Ka. 4 was stealthily removed by some one or it dropped out of his papers. He merely said that he did not send or deliver it to Narendra Mitra. This statement of Sohan Lal Sharma is evidently incorrect. Exhibit Ex. Ka. was his document. It was signed by him. It was neither stolen by some one nor he dropped It while carrying his papers. It could not develop wings to fly out to Narendra ,mitra. It must, therefore, have reached Narendra Mitra only by having been sent or delivered to him by Sohan Lal Sharma. ( 15 ) THE fact that it was given to Narendra Mitra by Sohan Lal Sharma has been testified by narendra Ultra (D. W. 5) and has been corroborated by Dr. K. C. Pathak (D. W. 3 ). Narendra mitra is a co-accused of Sohan Lai Sharma and Dr. K. C. Pathak was examined as a defence witness by Narendra Mitra. Dr. Pathak stated that Id his presence Sohan Lal Sharma gave Ex. Ka. 4 to Narendra Mitra for publication in the newspaper. K. C. Pathak (D. W. 3 ). Narendra mitra is a co-accused of Sohan Lai Sharma and Dr. K. C. Pathak was examined as a defence witness by Narendra Mitra. Dr. Pathak stated that Id his presence Sohan Lal Sharma gave Ex. Ka. 4 to Narendra Mitra for publication in the newspaper. He further stated that at the time when sohan Lal Sharma gave Ex. Ka. 4 to Narmdra Mitra, Sohan Lal Sharma had said that it Was in respect of corruption in the consolidation department, An opportunity was given to Sohan Lal sharma to cross-examine this witness but Sohan Lal Sharma did not cross-examine him. A note was accordingly made by the Sessions Judge to the effect, "no cross-examination by the accused sohan Lal Sharma. " there Is no provision of law which renders the statements of witnesses produced by one accused inadmissible against the co-accused, but there are obvious reasons for receiving such evidence with great caution. Those reasons a3 mentioned in Shapurjl Sorabji v. Emperor ILR 60 Pom 148 : A.. R. 1936 Bom 154 are firstly, that the evidence in question may not benefit the person who calls the witnesses and it may be introduced merely with the object of strengthening the case against the co-accused, secondly, that if the witnesses are examined by the police, the co-accused, Is deprived of the privilege of contradicting them by their former statements, since section 162 Cr. PC applies only to prosecution witnesses; thirdly, that the co-accused may lie deprived of the benefit of Section 342 of the Cose, since it is not, under the terms of that section, obligatory upon the court to give him an opportunity of making a statement about the evidence and fourthly, that there en be no guarantee of good faith in the case of defence witnesses. In the present case no investigation was made by the police and no statements were taken Under section 161 Cr. PC So the question that Sohan Lal Sharma is deprive of the privilege of contradicting Dr. Pathak by his former statement Under Section 162 Cr. PC does not arise in the present case. ( 16 ) SOHAN Lai Sharma knew from the very beginning that the stand taken by Narendra Mitra was that the article was delivered to him for publication by Sohan Lai isharma. When Dr. Pathak by his former statement Under Section 162 Cr. PC does not arise in the present case. ( 16 ) SOHAN Lai Sharma knew from the very beginning that the stand taken by Narendra Mitra was that the article was delivered to him for publication by Sohan Lai isharma. When Dr. K. C. Pathak deposed to that effect, the Sessions Judge, in all fairness to Sohan Lai Sharma ottered him an opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Pathak, but Sohan ial Sharma did not cross-examine the witness. Or. Pathaks statement was recorded on 5th June, 1959. Sohan Lai Sharma was examined as a witness on 15th September, 1960. Sohan Lai Sharma, when he entered the witness box as aware of Dr. Pathaks testimony, yet in his deposition Sohan Lai Sharma did not suggest or explain as to why Dr. Sbarma should have falsely deposed against him Sohan Lai Sharma had thus full opportunity to make a statement about the evidence against him. In the present case the guarantee of good faith of the witnesses of Narendra Mitra was neither more nor less than that of the prosecution witnesses or the witnesses of Sohan Lai Sharma. The evidence of Dr. Pathak was not altogether useless for Narendra Mitra. His purpose in producing Dr. Pathak was to press to his advantage the point that as the article was handed over to him by Sohan Lal Sharma, who is a (lawyer and therefore expected to act with responsibility, he was led to accept the allegations as correct. The reasons for which the statement of a witness of an accused is not to be accepted against the co-accused do not exist in this ease. ( 17 ) IN the absence of any explanation by Sohan Lai Sharma how Ex. Ka. 4 reached Narendra mitra or any suggestion that Dr. Pathak was ill-disposed towardshim, we have no hesitation in finding that Ex. Ka. 4 delivered to Jlarendra Mitra by Sohan Lai Sharma for publishing it in Nai lahar of which Narendra Mitra was the editor, printer and publisher. Sohan Lai Sharma cannot, therefore escape the responsibility for the publication of the article on 28th April, 1956. As the publication was made at his instance, Sohan Lai Sharma again committed the offence on 28th april, 1956, the date of the issue of the newspaper. Sohan Lai Sharma cannot, therefore escape the responsibility for the publication of the article on 28th April, 1956. As the publication was made at his instance, Sohan Lai Sharma again committed the offence on 28th april, 1956, the date of the issue of the newspaper. The complaint was, therefore, filed within six months of the date of the commission of the offence and is not time barred. ( 18 ) IT was next contended on behalf of the appellants that the complaint could not be entertained against them as the sanction given by the Government for the prosecution of the accused was defective. It was argued that the order sanctioning the prosecution did not contain the facts constituting the charge and so the sanction was bad in law. There is nothing in law which requires that the order sanctioning prosecution must contain a detail of the facts constituting the charge. What appears necessary is that the Government before making an order sanctioning the prosecution, should have before it the full facts on which prosecution is sought to be lodged. In the present case the D. M. , when he moved the Government for sanction, sent to the Government a copy of the article in question along with his report. Government had thus before it all We necessary material to consider the question of granting sanction. There is, therefore, no force in the appellants argument that the order of sanction is defective. ( 19 ) ANOTHER contention of the appellants is that the case falls within the First and Ninth exceptions to Section 499. P. C. and as suth they did not commit the offence of defamation. ( 20 ) THE first Exception to Section 499 provides that it is not definition to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. The Ninth txception runs to the following effect: It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of |he per-;son making it or of any other person, or for the public good. For a defence under the First Exception the imputation has to be true and the publication of it has to be for public good. For a defence under the First Exception the imputation has to be true and the publication of it has to be for public good. As many as 11 witnesses were examined by the tie-fence in support of the contention that the allegations in the article were true. ( 21 ) (AFTER discussing evidence of these witnesses His Lordship concluded) The Sessions Judge, therefore, rightly found that it was not established that the imputations contained in the article were true. The first Exception cannot, therefore, be of any avail to the appellants. ( 22 ) THE essential feature of the Ninth Exception is We the imputations should be made in good faith for the public. good. Good faith implies due and reasonable care and caution. We have seen above that no specific instance at bribery has been proved. (After discussing evidence His Lordship held), it is, therefore, perfectly clear that the information in possession of the appellants could not have fairly and reasonably led them to the inference that Sri Saksena has collected thousands of rupees in bribe. It cannot, therefore, be said that the imputations were made in good faith. The appeals have no force and must fail. ( 23 ) WE are of the view that the sentences awarded to the appellants by the Sessions Judge will meet the ends of justice and there is no necessity to enhance (he sentence. ( 24 ) WE accordingly dismiss the revision and the two appeals. .