Back
Allahbad High Court
RAJESHWARIPRASAD
Hardevi Malkani - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Decided On : 09/12/1967
DEFAMATION - [SECTION 499, 500 IPC] - [SECTION 198, 199 CRPC] - [SECTION 47, 73 IEA] - Petitioner convicted for defamation under Section 500 IPC for writing a letter containing defamatory statements about the complainant's daughter. Petitioner challenged the conviction on various grounds, including lack of proof of publication and failure to establish good faith.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the Principal of an Intermediate College, wrote a letter to the District Harijan and Social Welfare Officer in response to an inquiry about the admission of the complainant's daughter, Kumari Uma Rani, to the college. The letter contained defamatory statements about Kumari Uma Rani, alleging that she was a girl of doubtful character and had been caught loitering with local bad characters. The complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner for defamation under Section 500 IPC. The trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced her to pay a fine. The Sessions Judge upheld the conviction but reduced the fine.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the petitioner had failed to establish good faith in making the defamatory statements in the letter. The court also found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the letter was actually written by the petitioner and that there was publication of the imputation alleged to have been made by the petitioner against the person of Kumari Uma Rani. The court further held that the complainant, as the father of Kumari Uma Rani, was competent to file a complaint for defamation.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had established good faith in making the defamatory statements in the letter. 2. Whether the prosecution had proved that the letter was actually written by the petitioner. 3. Whether there was publication of the imputation alleged to have been made by the petitioner against the person of Kumari Uma Rani. 4. Whether the complainant was competent to file a complaint for defamation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner had failed to establish good faith in making the defamatory statements in the letter. The court noted that the petitioner had not raised the defence of justification and had not adduced any evidence to prove that the statements made in the letter were true. 2. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the letter was actually written by the petitioner. The court noted that the witness who testified to the genuineness of the letter did not have the necessary acquaintance with the petitioner's handwriting as required under Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act. 3. The court held that there was no publication of the imputation alleged to have been made by the petitioner against the person of Kumari Uma Rani. The court noted that the prosecution had not examined the person to whom the letter was addressed, the Harijan Social Welfare Officer, and there was no evidence that the letter was actually read by him. 4. The court held that the complainant, as the father of Kumari Uma Rani, was competent to file a complaint for defamation.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and the Sessions Judge, and acquitted the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 499 punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 20 days. That order of conviction was made by Sri Dinesh Chandra Verma, Judicial Officer Chhibramau, Fatehgarh.
3. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad. The learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal and while maintaining the order of conviction he reduced the sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 200/- only. The fine was made payable within 15 days. In default, the petitioner was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment as directed by the learned Magistrate.
4. The prosecution of the petitioner was based upon a complaint filed by Nathoo Lal. Nathu Lal is the father of one Kumari Uma Rani. The petitioner is the Principal of Inter College for Girls, Narayan Arya Kanya Pathshala. Km. Uma Rani had applied for admission in the 9th class of the institution. The case of the prosecution was that the petitioner wrongfully and maliciously imputed bad character to his daughter Km. Uma Rani and refused her admission in the aforesaid College. When the complainant applied to the District Harijan and Social Welfare Officer about it the petitioner wrote back to the District and Social Welfare Officer a letter in which she made a defamatory statement about the complainant's daughter. Such a conduct on the part of the petitioner had defamed the complainant. It had become impossible for him to marry his daughter. It was also alleged by the complainant in his complaint that the petitioner had caused oral defamation similar in nature before other persons also. It was further alleged that the petitioner had received scholarship for Km. Uma Rani and that she had misappropriated the same.
5. The trial Magistrate, after considering the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the charge of embezzlement was not proved even prima facie. He, therefore, refused to frame charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 406 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate further found that from the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant the charge of oral defamation had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Finally the learned Magistrate arrived at the conclusion that the defamation of the complainant's daughter by the averments made in the letter written by the petitioner to the Harijan and Social Welfare Officer was proved. The letter, according to the view of the learned Magistrate, did contain defamatory matter. The learned Magistrate also arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to prove good faith. On such findings the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner under Section 500 I. P. C. and awarded the sentence, referred to above.
6. It is not in controversy in this case that the petitioner was the Principal of the said Intermediate College which was thereafter converted into a Degree College nor is it in controversy that the complainant applied for admission of his daughter to the 9th class in the College. That application was admittedly rejected and Km. Uma Rani was not admitted. There is not much controversy about the other fact also that some scholarship for Km. Uma Rani had been realised by the said College. But on behalf of the petitioner it was urged that when mistake, with regard to scholarship, was discovered it was immediately refunded. It may be mentioned that the learned Magistrate had framed two distinct charges against the petitioner, one of which was in respect of oral defamation and the other about the defamation in writing. As the case of the complainant with regard to oral defamation was not found to have been proved by the trial Magistrate that part of the complainant's case is now no more under consideration before me.
7. The letter which is said to have contained
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
