http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: CHAMAN LAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/03/1970

BENCH: RAY, A.N. BENCH: RAY, A.N. DUA, I.D.

CITATION:  1970 AIR 1372            1970 SCR  (3) 913  1970 SCC  (1) 590  CITATOR INFO :  R          1971 SC1567  (8)  RF         1981 SC1514  (10,17)

ACT: Indian   Penal  Code,  18  ,  ss.  499  and   500--Plea   of justification under exceptions 1, 8 and 9 of s. 499-Scope of when documents privileged,

HEADNOTE: The appellant, who was the President of the local  Municipal Committee,  was  convicted under Section 500 of  the  Indian Penal  Code  on  a complaint that  he  had  made  defamatory remarks  in respect of the character of the complainant,  a- Nurse attached to the Civil Dispensary, at a public meeting; that he wrote a letter to the Civil Surgeon which  contained defamatory   statements  against  her  character  and   also repeated   the  defamatory  allegations  before  the   Civil Surgeon.   The  appellant’s  plea  of  justification   under exceptions  1, 8 and 9 of s. 499 I.P.C. was rejected by  the trial  court and his appeal to the High Court was also  dis- missed.  On appeal to this Court HELD On the facts, the appeal must be dismissed. In order to come within the First Exception to s. 499 it has to be established   that  what has been  imputed  concerning the respondent is true and the publication of the imputation is  for  the  public good.  The onus of  proving  these  two ingredients  was on the appellant but he totally  failed  to establish these pleas.  On the contrary, the evidence showed that  the imputation concerning the respondent was not  true but  was  motivated by animus of the appellant  against  the respondent. [917 H] The Eighth Exception to s. 499 indicates that an  accusation in  good faith against the person to any of those  who  have lawful  authority  over  that person  with  respect  to  the subject  matter of the accusation is not defamation, but  in the  present case there was utter lack of good faith in  the accusation.   Good  faith  requires  care  and  caution  and prudence  in  the background of context  and  circumstances. The  position  of  the person  making  the  imputation  will regulate the standard of care and caution. 1918 Cl The Ninth Exception provides. that if the imputation is made

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

in good faith for the protection of the person making it  or for  another  person  or  for the  public  good  it  is  not defamation.  Apart from the lack of good faith there was  no evidence to support the Plea that the imputation was for the public  good.  Furthermore the interest has to be  real  and legitimate  when communication is made in protection of  the interest of the person making it. [918 D] The plea that the letter to the Civil Surgeon was privileged because  as the President of the local  Municipal  Committee the  appellant had to write to the Civil Surgeon  about  the work  of the complaint was not taken at the trial and  there was  no evidence to support it.  Furthermore, the  privilege extends  only to a communication upon the subject with  res- pect.to which the privilege extends and the privilege can be claimed  in  exercise  of  the right  or  safeguard  of  the interest  which creates the privilege.  In the present  case the concurrent findings of fact repel any suggestion 914 of protection of the interest of the appellant in making the insinuations against the respondent contained in the  letter forming the subject matter of the complaint. [918 G]

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 1967. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated May  26,  1967  of  the Punjab and  Haryana  High  Court  in Criminal Revision No. 675 of 1965. R. L. Kohli, for the appellant.    Harbans Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 26 May, 1967. The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant  under section  500 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced  him  to three  months simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of  Rs. 1000  and in default thereof a further  simple  imprisonment for three months. The  case started on a complaint filed by Bishan Kaur on  23 October, 1963.  The complaint was that the appellant  Chaman Lal  who was at that time President of Municipal  Committee, Sujanpur  in the District of Gurdaspur had  made  defamatory remarks  against her character at a public meeting  held  at Sujanpur on 29 July, 1962 and that he further wrote a letter on  2  August, 1962 to the Civil  Surgeon,  Gurdaspur  which contained  defamatory statements against her  character  and further that on 27 August, 1962 the appellant repeated those defamatory allegations before the Civil Surgeon. The  appellant pleaded justification under Exceptions  1,  8 and  9 to section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.   The  First Exception  states  that  it  is  not  defamation  to  impute anything  which is true concerning any person, if it be  for the  public  good  that the imputation  should  be  made  or published.   Whether or not it is for the public good  is  a question  of fact.  The Eighth Exception states that  it  is not  defamation  to  prefer in  good  faith  ail  accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over  that  person  with respect to  the  subject-matter  of accusation.   The  Ninth  Exception states that  it  is  not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided  that the imputation be made in good faith for  the protection  of the interest of the person making it,  or  of any other person, or for the public good.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

91 5 The  letter  written by the appellant dated 2  August,  1962 which  was marked ;as Exhibit P.W. 4/A, inter alia,  states, "It is a matter of grave concern and consideration that Smt. Bishan  Kaur,  Nurse Dai attached with Civil  Dispensary  is earning  very bad reputation having illegal  relations  with one  Shri  Prakash Chand, a cycle repairer of  Sujanpur.   A meeting  of  the  Co-ordinate  Civic-body  of  Sujanpur  was convened, to create civic sense .... on 29 July at 8 A.M. in the  Town Hall wherein leading men of all  communities  were present.  The issue about the character of Smt.  Bishan Kaur was discussed in open house and the -public felt this  point seriously.  The matter has been brought to the notice of the worthy Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur personally by me on  1 August, 1962 and-he assured to take immediate action against her.   I  feel  my assumption to bring to  your  notice  and request  for  immediate  transfer  of  her  in  the   public interest". The  appellant  claimed  that the  residents  of  Ward-5  of Sujanpur and submitted a complaint in writing dated 25 July, 1962  against  the  serious misbehavior  of  the  respondent Bishan  Kaur  and  that allegations were  made  against  the character of Bishan Kaur in that application.  The appellant further  claimed that the -said application  marked  Exhibit D.W.  I/A  was  read  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Municipal Committee,  Sujanpur at the meeting on 29 July,  1962.   The further  defence of the appellant was that a resolution  was passed at that meeting requesting the appellant to  approach the higher authorities regarding the said application and it was pursuant to that resolution that the appellant wrote the letter  dated 2 August, 1962 forming the subject  matter  of the complaint.  The resolution on which the appellant relied was marked as Exhibit D.C. Counsel  for the appellant contended that good faith of  the appellant  was  established by two features; first  that  as President  he had to act in public interest, and,  secondly, large number of people who signed the application and passed the resolution were present at the meeting on 29 July,  1962 and there were allegations against the respondent.  It  was, therefore,  said  by  counsel for  the  appellant  that  the appellant  acted not only in,good faith but also for  public good. Public  good is a question of fact.  Good faith has also  to be established as a fact. The  concurrent findings of fact by the Sessions  Court  and the  High Court with regard to meeting on 29 July  1962  are three   fold;  first  that  there  was  no  record  of   the proceedings  of the meeting alleged to have been held on  29 July,  1962  at  the  Town Hall of  Sujanpur.   It  was  not therefore  dependable to rely only on the oral  evidence  of the   complainant  that  the  appellant  had  defamed   the, complainant at the meeting, and, therefore, benefit of doubt 916 was  given  to  the appellant on that  charge.   The  second finding is that the application dated 29 July, 1962  alleged to  have been made by the residents of Sujanpur and  further alleged  to  have  been read over by the  Secretary  of  the Municipal  Committee at the meeting on 29 July, 1962  was  a manufactured  document.  Thirdly, the resolution alleged  by the  appellant  to  have been passed  by  the  residents  of Sujanpur  at the meeting on 29 July, 1962 was also a  forged document.   One of the reasons given by both the Courts  for rejecting  both  the  application and  the  resolution  from consideration  was that none of these alleged documents  was put  to  any  of  the prosecution  witnesses  some  of  whom

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

admittedly  attended  the  meeting on 29  July,  1962.   The genuineness of the documents was rightly disbelieved. In the background of these findings of fact the plea of good faith  of  the appellant that he wrote the  letter  dated  2 August, 1962 pursuant to the application and the  resolution of  the  residents of Sujanpur loses all force  and  has  no foundation., In order to establish good faith and bona  fide it  has  to be seen first the circumstance under  which  the letter was written or words were uttered; secondly,  whether there  was any malice; thirdly, whether the  appellant  made any  enquiry  before  he  made  the  allegations;  fourthly, whether  there  are reasons to accept the  version  that  he acted  with  care and caution and finally whether  there  is preponderance  of  probability that the appellant  acted  in good faith. The appellant said that he verified the allegations and then wrote   the  letter  forming  the  subject  matter  of   the complaint.   The appellant has not given any evidence as  to what  steps he took for verifying the allegations.   On  the contrary,  it  appears to be established  on  evidence  that during  five  years  preceding the  letter  written  by  the appellant  to  the  Civil Surgeon there  was  not  a  single instance or occasion of any complaint against the respondent Bishan  Kaur.  The further finding is that the appellant  in defence  sought to produce witnesses who tried to  establish that the respondent was a woman of doubtful virtues.   Three of  the witnesses on behalf of the appellant were  a  potato chop  seller, a tongawala and a petty shop-keeper  and  they went  to  the  extent  of  saying  that  they  had   illicit connections   with   her"  These  defence   witnesses   were disbelieved.   That also proved that the appellant  did  not act  in good faith.  The appellant was the President of  the Municipal Committee and it would not be an act of good faith or  prudence  and  caution  to rely on  such  persons  as  a tongawala  or  a  petty shop-keeper  in  making  allegations against the character of the respondent.                             917 Counsel  for the appellant relied on Exhibits D.A. and  D.B. and  submitted  that the High Court did not take  these  two letters into consideration in finding out the good faith  of the appellant.  Exhibit D.A. is dated 18 September, 1962 and is a letter addressed by the Civil Surgeon to the appellant. Exhibit D.B. is a memorandum by the residents of Sujanpur to the  Civil Surgeon and bears the date 27 August,  1962.   In Exhibit  D.B.  the alleged signatories wrote  to  the  Civil Surgeon  that  they had to attend the enquiry by  the  Civil Surgeon into the conduct of Bishan Kaur and that the enquiry was  at  the demand of the general public and  further  that there were complaints against the respondent and it was  not desirable  to  retain such a person on the noble  job  of  a nurse.   The letter of the Civil Surgeon dated I  September, 1962 was that a large number of people were present and bulk of them expressed their views against Biishan Kaur and  some of  the  persons  met the Civil Surgeon  subsequent  to  the enquiry  at his office.  The High Court found that  some  of the persons who submitted the alleged representation against the  respondent to the Civil Surgeon later  on  controverted the  allegations  against the respondent and  this  evidence established  that the complainant was an ordinary nurse  and that is how the appellant had manoeuvred discussion of  the_ complainant’s  character  at the enquiry  before  the  Civil Surgeon on 27 August, 1962. The  appellant cannot rely on Exhibit D.B. dated 27  August, 1962  to establish good faith in writing the letter dated  I August-,  1962.  Furthermore, Exhibit D.B. which is  alleged

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

to  have been written by the residents of Sujanpur  was  not proved  by calling persons who are alleged to  have  signed. Documents  do  not prove themselves.  Exhibit D.B.  was  not proved  by  the persons who are alleged to have  signed  the same  nor was the truth of statements contained  in  Exhibit D.B.  proved.  The enquiry made by the Civil Surgeon  on  27 August,  1962  was  found by the High  Court  to  have  been engineered  by the private animus of the -appellant  against the  respondent  by sending some residents to the  place  of enquiry.   This  finding not only disproves good  faith  but establishes  total lack of care and prudence on the part  of the appellant. The  letter  written  by the appellant  indicates  that  the appellant  was  setting  his seal  of  approval  to  matters contained  in  that  letter.  There is  no  proof  that  the appellant made any enquiry about the matters before he wrote the  letter.  There is no evidence that the appellant  acted with  reasonable  care.   On  the  contrary,   circumstances suggest  that the appellant acted without any sense of  res- ponsibility and propriety.  The appellant was a President of the  Municipal  Committee and there he was required  to  act with utmost prudence and caution. In  order to come within the First Exception to section  499 of the Indian Penal Code it has to be established that  what has 918 been  imputed  concerning  the respondent is  true  and  the publication  of the imputation is for the public good.   The onus of proving these two ingredients, namely, truth of  the imputation  and  the publication of the imputation  for  the public  good  is on the appellant.  The  appellant  totally- failed  to  establish  these pleas.  On  the  contrary,  the evidence is that the imputation concerning the respondent is not true but is motivated by animus of the appellant against the respondent. The Eighth Exception to section 499 of the Indian Penal Code indicates  that accusation in good faith against the  person to  any of those who have lawful authority over that  person with respect to the subject matter or the accusation is  not defamation.   We have already expressed the view that  there is utter lack of good faith in accusation. The Ninth Exception states that if the imputation is made in good faith for the protection of the person,making it or for another person or for the public good it is not  defamation. There  is no evidence whatever to support the plea that  the imputation was for the public good.  The accusation was  not also  made  in  good faith.  Good faith  requires  care  and caution  and  prudence  in the  background  of  context  and circumstances.   The  position  of  the  person  making  the imputation  will regulate the standard of care and  caution. Under the Eighth Exception statement is made by a person  to another who has authority to deal with the subject matter of the  complaint  whereas the Ninth Exception deals  with  the statement  for the protection of the interest of the  person making  it.   Interest  of the person has  to  be  real  and legitimate  when communication is made in protection of  the interest of the person making it. Counsel  for the appellant contended that the  communication to  the  Civil  Surgeon  was  privileged,  because  as   the President of the Municipal Committee he had to write to  the Civil Surgeon about the work of the complainant.  It will be a question of fact as to what the duty of the appellant  was in  relation  to  the work of the  respondent  in  making  a statement to the Civil Surgeon.  This plea was not taken and there  is  no  evidence to  support  it.   Furthermore,  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

privilege  extends only to a communication upon the  subject with  respect  to  which  the,  privilege  extends  and  the privilege  can be claimed in exercise of the right or  safe- guard  of the interest which creates the privilege.  In  the present  case,  the concurrent findings of  fact  repel  any suggestion of protection of the interest of the appellant in making the insinuations contained in the letter forming  the subject matter of the complaint.  There is also no  material to show as to how the letter was written by the appellant in protection of his interest. 919 The letter written by the appellant contains imputations and insinuations  against the character of the respondent.   One of the allegations was that a cycle repairer was on intimate terms  with the respondent.  This was a  serious  allegation against the character of the respondent.  The appellant made baseless  and  reckless  allegations.   They  are   baseless because  they  have  not been  proved.   They  are  reckless because  the  appellant claimed to be the President  of  the Municipal Committee but he acted in a totally  irresponsible manner   by  having  gone  out  of  his  way  to  make   the -allegations  against the character of a poor  and  helpless widow.   The appellant was a man of power and wealth.   That is all the more why he should have acted with restraint  and decorum.  He failed in both.  There was no good faith.   The appellant cannot be said to have acted in public good. Counsel  for  the appellant submitted that if  there  was  a reduction  of sentence from three months to two months  that would save him from disqualification.  There is no merit  in that submission.  This is not a case where there should be a reduction  of  sentence particularly when  the  Courts  have found  facts  which dispel any semblance of good  faith  and indicate  on the contrary lack if prudence and dignity  with which a person occupying the office of the President  should act. The   appeal,  therefore,  fails  and  is  dismissed.    The appellant  is  directed  to surrender to the  bail  bond  to undergo the unexpired term of his imprisonment. R.K.P.S.                                              Appeal dismissed. 920