Exceptions 8 and 9 to Section 499 of the IPC provide defenses to the offense of defamation, but these defenses are only available in specific circumstances.

Judgment

AYYANGAR, J. : This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab by which a Criminal Revision filed against an appellate Order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana confirming the appellant s conviction and sentence was dismissed in limine.

2. The facts giving rise to the appeal lie in a very narrow compass. The appellant was prosecuted on a complaint filed by Mst. Ram Rakhi of the offence of defamation under S. 500, 1. P. C. The appellant and Mst. Ram Rakhi were neighbours. The defamatory matter was contained in a communication addressed by the appellant who is a member of the police force to the District Panchayat Office, Ludhiana. In this "application" the appellant alleged that the complainant was a woman of loose character who was having illicit connection with goondas, her paramours coming to her frequently at nights and that her immoral activities reflected badly on the locality in which the appellant lived. There is no doubt that this was grossly defamatory of the complainant. The defence of the appellant substantially was that in substance the allegations were true and that he was entitled to make this application to the Panchayat in order to seek the assistance of that body for getting the complainant out of the locality and for this purpose he relied upon the last paragraph of the application which ran:

"Petty problems like this can be easily solved by the village Panchayat instead of referring the case to the Court. It is therefore requested that the Panchayat of village Sanghol (P. O. Sanghol) district Ludhiana may kindly be asked to take suitable action to end this prostitution adda, after getting the house in which Shadi (father of the complainant) is residing at present, vacated from him.

The learned Magistrate considered a large volume of evidence that was led as regards the plea of justification as well as of the qualified privilege within exceptions 8 and 9 of S. 499 I.P.C., and rejecting the defence, convicted the appellant of the offence charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions judge and he recorded;

"I come to the conclusion that accused Kanwal Lal was rightly convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court. The offence against him is fully established, he deserves no mercy. He was employed in the office of the Inspection General Police, Punjab Chandigarh and he tried to use his office which he was holding simply to over-awe the poor complainant and her parents, just to get the possession of his house from them. The quantum of sentence passed against the accused appears to be correct in view of his first offence and youthful age."

3. It was the revision filed against this judgment that was dismissed in limine by the High Court.

4. There being no dispute about the publication or of the published matter being defamatory being of a character falling within S. 499. I.P.C., the only argument that was addressed before us was based upon the case falling within Exceptions 8 and 9 to S. 499, I.P.C. Exception 8 runs in these terms :

"It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject matter of accusation.

In order to establish a defence under this exception the accused would have to prove that the person to whom the complaint was made had lawful authority over the person complained against, in respect of the subject-matter of. the accusation. If the District Panchayat Officer or the Panchayat had such lawful authority, the last paragraph of the offending communication would have justified such a plea. But there is on basis at all for this argument in view of the clear provisions of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 under which statute alone Panchayats have jurisdiction. Chapter IV of that Act deals with the Criminal Jurisdiction of the Panchayat. Section 38