SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1952 Supreme(Kar) 23

BALAKRISHNAIYA
K. S. NAMJUNDAIAH – Appellant
Versus
SETTI CHIKKA THIPPANNA – Respondent


( 1 ) IN C. C. No. 123 of 1943-49 on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate, chickballapur, the respondent was convicted for an ollence under section 500,. P. C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ -. On appeal, the learned First addl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore, acquitted the accused on the ground that no case is made out against him. The complainant has preferred this revision petition against that order.

( 2 ) DEFAMATION is denned by Section 499,. P. C. thus:

"whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. "

( 3 ) IT is not disputed that the expression "black-marketeer" which is per se defamatory I within the meaning of the aforesaid section was used by the accused in relation to the complainant in a public gathering which was presided over by a Government officer and in which besides the parties to this proceeding a large number of respectable persons of the locality wer















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top