Communications made to a public officer in official confidence are privileged under Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

ORDER :- This civil revision petition has been filed against the order made by the learned District Munsif of Srikakulam in I.A. No. 693 of 1952 in O.S. 207 of 1952.

2. The facts are : The defendants in this suit sent a petition to the Taluk Supply Officer, Amadalavalsa, dated 10-2-1851 attributing black marketing activities to the plaintiff Killi Suryanarayana Naidu, the petitioner before us. Thereupon a confidential departmental enquiry had been held apparently to find out whether there was any substance in the allegations so that in the event of there being no substance in the petition the matter might be dropped or in the event of there being any substance action might be taken by a complaint being laid before the Police. We do not know the fate of this enquiry. This plaintiff thereupon has filed the suit O.S. No. 207 of 1952 for defamation and recovery of damages of Rs. 1000.

3. This plaintiff summoned for the statements made by the defendants on 19-2-1951, 21-2-1951 and 25-4-1951 to the Taluk Supply Officer, Amudalavalasa.

4. Thereupon the learned District Munsif and the Collector of Srikakulam correctly followed the procedure set out by me in - Narayanaswami v. State of Madras, AIR 1953 Mad 228 (A). The summons was sent to the Collector and thereupon the Collector has applied his mind to the documents sought to be disclosed. He has claimed privilege by means of a communication in the form of an affidavit by his Personal Assistant, who is in charge of the records indicating why he was claiming privilege. The Personal Assistant to the Collector who is of the rank of a Deputy Collector and is in charge of the office of the Collector has sworn that the disclosure of the records would be prejudicial to public interest as Purushottapuram village to which the parties belong is a factious village and the publication of the statements given by witnesses and the official reports will aggravate the dispute in the village.

The records were also sent in a sealed cover through an officer of the department claiming privilege. The learned District Munsif thereupon has applied his mind to find out whether the claim is not arbitrary and capricious but well founded. He writes

"I opened the sealed cover and on a perusal of the entire file thereon, I agree with the opinion of the Collector that the publication of the statements of witnesses at the enquiry by the Taluk Supply officer would be prejudicial to public interest."

Therefore he dismissed the petition and hence this civil revision petition.

5. In this revision three points are urged, viz., that the privilege has been claimed by the Personal Assistant to the Collector and not by the Collector and therefore the privilege was not claimed by the head of the Department; secondly, that the learned District Munsif has not applied his own mind; and thirdly that these statements are not communications made to a public officer in official confidence. In my opinion these three points neither singly nor cumulatively have got any substance.

6. POINT 1 : I have mentioned how the Collector to whom the summons was sent has claimed privilege by means of an affidavit through his personal Assistant who is in direct charge of the records and how the records have been sent in a sealed cover to Court. Section 123, Evidence Act, only requires that the privilege should be claimed by the Head of the Department and not that the affidavit should be sworn to by him. The use of the word "concerned" in relation to the Head of the Department shows that the affidavit must contain a sworn statement by the Head of the department in whose custody the document happened to be at the time when discovery and production are claimed. There is no substance in this point.

7. POINT 2 : There seems to be some confusion as to the exact nature of the question to be decided by the court. The question whether a communication was made in official confidence is for the court to decide; but the public officer concerned is the sole ju