The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility and privilege of statements made in court, as governed by legal provisions such as Section 132, Evidence Act, and Section 105, Indian Evidence Act.

Kinkhede—Bansi, Ramnath and the applicant, Surajmal, were real brothers, but all of them were adopted by other persons Bansi was adopted by Gorelal of Gondia, Ramnath by Rampratap and Surajmal by Ramchandra; the adoptive fathers were also related inter so as brothers. This Gorelal was indebted to one Hazarimal of Saugor. The latter obtained a decree against him for debts due to him some time in 1922. In execution of that decree, some malik makbuza fields of Gorelal were sold by auction in 1924, and Ramnath became the auction purchaser. Gorelal died a few months after the auction. Bansi, the adopted son of Gorelal thereafter laid claim to the property purchased by Ramnath on the ground hat the sale having been held in execution of a decree obtained for the immoral debts of his adoptive father, Gorelal, was void and inoperative as against the property. He attempted to secure possession by dispossessing the auction purchaser, but in the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal P.C., the latter's possession was confirmed. Hence Bansi instituted Civil Suit No. 43 of 1925 in the Court of Senior Subordinate Judge, Gondia, for possession of the fields.

2. The allegations in the plaint regarding Gorelal's immorality being, however, con sidered vague and indefinite, the defendant, Ramnath, apparently moved the Court to call for a further and better statement for the plaintiff. The Court on 2nd January 1926 ordered plaintiff Bansi to file a detailed statement setting forth his allegations about Gorelal's immorality more specifically. He accordingly filed one, mentioning even the name of the woman with whom Gorelal was said to be carrying on his intrigues. That woman is Mt. Kokli, the widow of Rampratap, the adoptive father of the aforesaid auction purchaser, Ramnath. The said written statement was dated 18th, January 1926 and is Ex. D-3 in this case. The defendant Ramnath at once took exception to the reference to the intrigues between Gorelal and Mt. Kokli as irrelevant and scandalous, as his application dated 19th January 1926 (Ex. D-2) will show. The Court, however, did not strike out that matter on that score. of the issues framed in the case on 9th February 1926, the following are material to the present case:

(5) Whether the decrees mentioned in the plaintiff's written statement dated 13th January 1926, para. 1, were obtained for debts incurred by Gorelal for illegal and immoral purposes as alleged by plaintiff in the said written statement, paras. 1 to 3? If so,

(6) Whether the sale of the malik makbuzaland in suit was held under decrees for debts incurred by Gorelal for illegal or immoral purposes to the knowledge of the defendant and the sale is not binding on the plaintiff? If so, to what extent?

3. In support of his allegations Bansi examined, amongst other witnesses, the applicant Surajmal as P.W. 6 on 19th. April 1926 : Ex. P-1 is a copy of his deposition. The applicant, Surajmal, uttered, in the course of this deposition, wantonly defamatory. statements with regard to Gorelal having been seen by him to have had sexual intercourse with Mt. Kokli. Ramnath felt himself aggrieved by this defamatory statement and lodged a complaint under Section 500, I.P.C. against the applicant Surajmal on 14th August 1926.

4. The applicant was said to have also made another defamatory statement, of more or less the same nature, in June 1926, on the road near his house, in the presence of one Hamirsingh (P.W. 6). So the prosecution was really for two statements. After holding the necessary trial the Magistrate found the applicant guilty under Section 500, I.P.C., for making both the defamatory statements and fined him Rs. 100 for each. The applicant went up in appeal to the Sessions Judge, Bhandara, who, however, quashed the conviction and sentence in so far as it related to the second statement, but upheld the same as regards the earlier defamatory statement made while giving evidence in Court on 9th April 1926.

5. The applicant has come up t