Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Tarkeshwar Nath, J.
Sardar Amar Singh
Versus
K.S.Badalia
Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1962 ;
Decided On : JULY 7, 1964
DEFAMATION - [SECTION 499, 500] - [INDIAN PENAL CODE] - [EXCEPTION 8] - [GOOD FAITH] - [PUBLICATION] - [HARM TO REPUTATION] - [INTENTION TO HARM] - [PROOF OF SIGNATURE] - [EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 47] - [RELEVANCY OF SIGNATURE] - [WITNESS COMPETENCY] - [DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS] - [COMMUNICATION TO THIRD PARTY] - [PRESIDENT OF MANAGING COMMITTEE] - [RECEIPT OF LETTER] - [STEPS TAKEN AFTER RECEIPT] - [IRRELEVANCE] - [PROOF OF PUBLICATION] - [COMMUNICATION TO AT LEAST ONE PERSON OTHER THAN PERSON DEFAMED] - [HARM TO REPUTATION] - [LOWER MORAL OR INTELLECTUAL CHARACTER] - [EXPLANATION 4, SECTION 499] - [PER SE DEFAMATORY WORDS] - [GOOD FAITH DEFENSE] - [EIGHTH EXCEPTION, SECTION 499] - [ACCUSATION TO LAWFUL AUTHORITY] - [PRESIDENT OF MANAGING COMMITTEE] - [LACK OF AUTHORITY OVER APPELLANT'S ACTIVITIES] - [BURDEN OF PROOF] - [REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR MAKING IMPUTATIONS] - [HONESTY OF PURPOSE] - [SENTENCE] - [FINE OF RS. 50/- OR SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR ONE MONTH IN DEFAULT] - [APPEAL ALLOWED, ACQUITTAL SET ASIDE, CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IMPOSED].
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a member of the Supervising Committee of Takht Harmandirji, Patna, filed a complaint against the respondent for defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent had sent a letter to the Deputy Defence Minister, containing defamatory statements against the appellant, alleging that he had amassed wealth by unfair means, had a gang of criminals at his command, and was misusing Gurudwara funds. The appellant alleged that the letter was intended to be read by others and caused considerable loss of prestige and harm to him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the letter bore the signature of the respondent and was intended to be published. The court also found that the defamatory statements made in the letter had harmed the reputation of the appellant. The court further found that the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of Exception 8 to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, which provides a defense for accusations made in good faith to a person in lawful authority, as the President of the Managing Committee did not have lawful authority over the appellant's activities.
Issues: 1. Whether the letter bore the signature of the respondent? 2. Whether the letter was intended to be published? 3. Whether the defamatory statements made in the letter had harmed the reputation of the appellant? 4. Whether the respondent was entitled to the benefit of Exception 8 to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the letter bore the signature of the respondent based on the evidence of witnesses who were acquainted with the respondent's handwriting and had seen his signature on previous occasions. The court also considered the fact that the President of the Managing Committee had received a reply to the letter from the respondent, which indicated that the respondent had sent the letter. 2. The court held that the letter was intended to be published based on the evidence that the letter was placed before the members of the Managing Committee and discussed, and that the General Secretary of the Managing Committee had sent a reply to the President. The court also considered the fact that the letter contained defamatory statements that were likely to harm the reputation of the appellant. 3. The court held that the defamatory statements made in the letter had harmed the reputation of the appellant based on the evidence of witnesses who testified that they had read the letter and that it had caused them to have a contemptuous feeling towards the appellant. The court also considered the fact that the appellant was a respected and reputable person in the community. 4. The court held that the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of Exception 8 to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code because the President of the Managing Committee did not have lawful authority over the appellant's activities. The court also found that the respondent had not established that he had made the accusations in good faith.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Magistrate, and convicted the respondent under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
1. This appeal by the complainant is directed against a judgement of acquittal by the Munsif Magistrate, first class, Patna. The complainant has preferred this appeal under Sec. 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His case, in brief, was that he was a member nominated by the District Judge. Patna of the supervising Committee of Takht Harmandirji, Patna City, and he was held in high esteem in society by the other nominated and elected members, office bearers and the Public at large. On 21-8-1959 the respondent sent a letter to Sardar Surjit Singhji Majithia, Deputy Defence Minister, Government of India, New Delhi, making baseless and scandalous imputations against the appellant. The appellant alleged in the petition of complaint that the letter contained defamatory statements which had caused considerable loss of prestige and harm to him. The appellant took strong exception to the following statements made in that letter :
"What this Sardar Amar Singh was and is, is not unknown to old police officers who are now, at the top posts, and how he has amassed some wealth by hook and by crook, and how he rose from a mere transport worker as Khalasi or driver to the present position. This man who barely can sign, has a big gang of Khalasies and drivers and criminals at his command who can be utilised for any purpose at any time. Is it not a tact that Sardar Amar Singh m conjunction with Sardar Arjun Singh, Sardar Sohan Singh and Sardar Ramautar Singh and others devised a scheme to grab properties and engineered false cases and had banked (?) them by false affidavits and statements on oath which had resulted in criminal action against 38 out of 41 witnesses for committing perjury and fabrication of false evidenced ? Who is the man who managed such a large number of false witnesses and how ?
Is it not a fact that he is befooling all the members of the Prabandhak Committee for his own ends by his facts and he along with Ramautar Singh, the Law Agent, are utilising the Gurudwara funds for their own purposes out of litigation costs and Sardar Amar Singh utilising the services of the law Agent and Gurdwara for his own cases and that is why he is interested in litigations. A thorough scrutiny of case accounts along with case diaries and order sheets will convince you about these facts and how Gurdwara funds are being utilised for personal gains. There are dozens of personal oases of Amar Singh and they are being supervised by Ramautar Singh and that is why ha is a daily attender of courts. Is it not a fact that he by keeping some criminals and bullies, is playing a roll of king Makers in the management and the gentry keeping aside being afraid of inviting unnecessary troubles to themselves by opposing him, as many have met in the past. Who is responsible for bringing in Gurbachan Singh Punchia as member and President of Gurdwara Management and this Punchia being convicted of theft of Government properties is absconding still ? Who engineered criminal false cases against Major Lochan Singh, the than P.M.G. Bihar and President of the Gurdwara Supervising Committee and Bhai Bhigwan Singh, the then Manager through Bir Singh a disgruntled and dismissed servant of the Gurdwara and banked (?) that on false evidence ? Were they bid people or they become hindrance to his nefarious activities which were responsible for disrepute to the Management ? The learned Magistrate in his judgement has held this man responsible for all troubles.
Many gentlemen have been insulted, humiliated and put to unnecessary troubles and harassments and humiliation. Those who opposed him or criticised his conducts as the undersigned b suffering at his instance. And all these for what, whether to serve the Gurdwara honourably or serve himself in the name of Gurudwara ? Can the Gurdwara Management engage criminals and bullies as employees as is the case at present ? If an account into the incidents of the Gurdwara is taken it will be exposed who is what ?"
His ca
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
