Skip to content


Pratti Rajamma Vs. Pratti Chintaiah - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1973CriLJ1489
AppellantPratti Rajamma
RespondentPratti Chintaiah
Excerpt:
- maximssections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [v.v.s. rao, n.v. ramana & p.s. narayana, jj] ghee as a live stock product held, [per v.v.s. rao & n.v. ramana, jj - majority] since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. the first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. the shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. by simmering unsalted butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. so to say, milk is converted to dahi, then butter...........be accepted and summons must be issued to sri n. venkataratnam, advocate at guntur, who issued the reply notice on the instructions of the respondent herein.2. the petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the respondent. after the death of her husband, certain disputes arose between herself and the respondent with re-gard to the possession of a house. she got a lawyer's notice issued to the respondent through her advocate, one mr. k. raja rao, to which the respondent caused a reply notice to be issued through sri n. venkataratnam, an advocate at guntur, in which certain statements alleged to be defamatory were made. the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent alleging an offence under section 500, indian penal code which was registered as c.c. no. 664 of 1969 on the file of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Madhava Reddi, J.

1. In my view, this reference must be accepted and summons must be issued to Sri N. Venkataratnam, Advocate at Guntur, who issued the reply notice on the instructions of the respondent herein.

2. The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the respondent. After the death of her husband, certain disputes arose between herself and the respondent with re-gard to the possession of a house. She got a lawyer's notice issued to the respondent through her advocate, one Mr. K. Raja Rao, to which the respondent caused a reply notice to be issued through Sri N. Venkataratnam, an advocate at Guntur, in which certain statements alleged to be defamatory were made. The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent alleging an offence under Section 500, Indian Penal Code which was registered as C.C. No. 664 of 1969 on the file of the III Additional Munsif-Magis-trate, Guntur. After examining two witnesses in support of her case, the petitioner requested summons to be issued to Sri N. Venkataratnam who gave reply notice containing defamatory statements. The learned Magistrate has rejected that petition. On revision, the learned II Additional Sessions Judge has recommended to the High Court for setting aside that order.

3. Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act no doubt, prohibits any pleader from disclosing any communication made to- him by his client in the course of and for the purpose of his employment as such pleader without the express consent of the client. In the instant case, what was communicated by the respondent to Sri N. Venkataratnam the pleader, was put in the form of a reply notice and it is evidently to prove this notice that he is being summoned. The lawyer has already, with the consent of the respondent who is the accused in the case, communicated the information given to him in the reply notice, and it is only for the purpose of proving that notice that he is being summoned and not to disclose any private or confidential communication between him and the respondent. In Palaniappa Chettiar v. Emperor, 1935 Mad WN 460 it was held by the Madras High Court that Section 126 is not infringed if an advocate who asks a defamatory question on the information of his client deposes to that effect when his client is sued for defamation or when his reply notice to that effect is allowed to be produced in Court. The communication between Sri N. Venkataratnam and the respondent having been put in the form of a notice was no longer a confidential communication. Section 126 of the Evidence Act prohibits a pleader from disclosing any communication made to him in the course of and for the purpose of his employment as such pleader. Disclosure implies that which was not already made known to others. If the communication by the client to the advocate is put in the form of a notice and that notice is produced in Court, it forms the basis of a complaint for defamation under Section 500, Indian Penal Code. If what is communicated by the client to the advocate is what is put in the notice, then there is already a disclosure, and when such an advocate is called upon to give evidence, he is not disclosing any fact for the first time but is only substantiating what is already disclosed. Section 126 therefore does not stand in the way of summoning the advocate for this purpose.

4. The revision petition is therefore allowed; summons, as prayed for, shall be issued to Sri N. Venkataratnam advocate, Guntur, who gave the reply notice on behalf of the respondent. Reference is answered accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //