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

1938 Supreme(Mad) 167

PANDRANG ROW
G. N. Subba Rao – Appellant
Versus
Anna M. Venkatachalapathi Aiyar – Respondent


ORDER

Pandrang Row, J.

1. The petitioners, nineteen in number, have been convicted of the offence of defamation and sentenced under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, to pay a fine of Rs. 20 each and in default of payment to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The defamation consisted in the presentation of a certain petition to the Sub-Inspector of Police by the residents of a certain locality in Madura against the complainant alleging that he was in the habit of getting drunk and abusing people and threatening to do evil by the use of black art and praying for protection against the complainant. There can be no doubt that the so-called defamation was the presentation of a petition to a public officer with the intention of protecting the interests of the people who sent the petition. That fact stands out unmistakably, and this outstanding fact has been practically ignored by the learned Magistrate. The case clearly fell under the 8th exception which declares that:

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 the accusation.

2. It is not pretended that th

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