The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of defamation under Section 499, P. C. and the requirement to prove the exact words of imputation, as well as the intention to cause harm in the context of defamation.

( 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 were present.

( 4 ) THE main ground upon which the accused has been acquitted by the learned sessions Judge is that there is no satisfactory evidence regarding the exact words of imputation. In para 4 of his judgment, he states thus:

"even regarding the exact words which were alleged to have been uttered by the appellant, there is no satisfactory evidence. Each witness has given his own version about the words that were uttered by the appellant. The learned Magistrate has discussed this aspect of the case and has admitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses varied regarding the exact words used, but he was of the opinion that the one important factor common in the version of all the witnesses was that the appellant stated that Nanjun-diah was dealing in black-market. In a case of defamation like the present one, it is absolutely necessary that the exact words uttered by the accused should be alleged and should be proved to have been uttered by him by consistent evidence and any discrepancy therein cannot go to the advantage of the respondent, but such a benefit should always be extended to the appellant. Therefore, from the consideration of the entire evidence, I am of the opinion that the respondent has not proved his case against the appellant conclusively and that the learned Magistrate was wrong in coming to the conclusion that the appellant was liable for an offence under Section 500,. P. C. and convicting him. "

It is rather difficult to understand what the learned Judge means when he says that "exact words" of imputation have not been reproduced consistently by all the witnesses. If it is meant that the witnesses should remember and reproduce the identical or tbe very same words in the order they were uttered and that even if there is some variation in the words used or trifling inconsistency in the words of different witnesses, such evidence should be discarded, it would be laying down rather a too broad or a too dangerous proposition. In our opinion, it is sufficient for the purposes of the section, if witnesses are agreed in a substantial measure on the words of imputation uttered as it is hardly possible or necessary to reproduce every word or expression used. In 'bhola NATH v. EMPEROR', AIR 1929 All 1 at p. 9 King J. remarked thus:

"it is unnecessary to prove the exact words used by the accused for the purpose of supporting a conviction for oral defamation. It is sufficient to prove the purport or substance of the defamatory imputations. No honest witness would profess to remember the exact words used by a person who has been speaking for even 15 minutes. At the most he may remember some striking phrase or expression. But a witness's failure to recall the exact words used, or the exact context in which they were spoken, is immater

Click Here to Read the rest of this document