2008 Supreme(SC) 1658

2008(7) Supreme 636
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.
M.A. Rumugam — Appellant
versus
Kittu @ Krishnamoorthy — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1749 of 2008
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 237 of 2007]
Decided on : 07-11-2008

IMPORTANT POINT
It is now a well-settled principle of law that those who plead exception must prove it.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 500 – Defamation – Appellant owner of a land admeasuring 0.83 acres when allegedly visited his land, he found that 9 coconut trees were dead- Upon enquiry, he allegedly came to know that one” N” and “K” had damaged said coconut trees by pouring acid mixed with kerosene thereon allegedly on advice of respondent – On Complaint filed by appellant a First Information Report was lodged – In the said FIR, names of respondent and two others were mentioned in the column of ‘doubtful persons’ portion – Respondent filed a private complaint, against appellant for commission of offence of defamation under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code – Taking cognizance of said complaint, Magistrate issued summons to appellant – Quashing Petition – Dismissed by High Court – Appeal – Held Allegations made in complaint petition, made out a case for proceeding against appellant under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code as thereby imputation concerning the respondent had been made intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation would harm his reputation – For the purpose of bringing his case within the purview of the Eight and the Ninth Exception appended to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, it would be necessary for appellant to prove good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it or of any other person or for the public good – It is now a well-settled principle of law that those who plead exception must prove it – The burden of proof that his action was bonafide was , thus, on appellant alone – At this stage, it would have been premature for High Court to consider materials placed by appellant before it so as to arrive at a definite conclusion that there was no element of bad faith on the part of the appellant in making the said complaint before the police authorities-No infirmity found in the impugned judgment – Appeal dismissed. (Para 14 to 20)

       Facts of the Case :

        1. Appellant owner of a land admeasuring 0.83 acres when allegedly visited his land herein in the instant case he found that 9 coconut trees were dead. Upon enquiry, he allegedly came to know that one” N” and “K” had damaged said coconut trees by pouring acid mixed with kerosene thereon allegedly on advice of respondent. On Complaint filed by appellant a First Information Report was lodged on basis of complaint given by appellant. In the said FIR, names of respondent and two others were mentioned in the column of `doubtful persons’ portion. Respondent filed a private complaint, against appellant for commission of offence of defamation under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code. Taking cognizance of said complaint, Magistrate issued summons to appellant. Quashing Petition filed by appellant was dismissed by High Court.

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        Allegations made in complaint petition, made out a case for proceeding against appellant under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code as thereby imputation concerning the respondent had been made intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation would harm his reputation. For the purpose of bringing his case within the purview of the Eight and the Ninth Exception appended to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, it would be necessary for appellant to prove good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it or of any other person or for the public good. It is now a well-settled principle of law that those who plead exception must prove it. The burden of proof that his action was bonafide was on the appellant alone. At this stage, , it would have been premature for High Court to consider materials placed by appellant before it so as to arrive at a definite conclusion that there was no element of bad faith on the part of the appellant in making the said complaint before the police authorities. Hence no infirmity was found in impugned judgment of High Court.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.