1. This revision arises out of a complaint filed by the petitioner herein against the respondent for defamation. The defamatory statement Itself was made by the respondent in an application for transfer of a case filed against him by one Muthukrishna lyer who was a branch postmaster at Utttramerur wherein the respondent was a clerk. In the affidavit filed by the respondent in support of his application for transfer, the respondent stated that the complainant, Aravamuda lyengar, is a rowdi and that he has been enlisted as such in the police records and is also one of the bad elements. He stated also that there was a faction in the village of Uttiramerur and the witnesses were supplied by the petitioner herein for the purpose of giving evidence in the Court against him. He further stated that the Magistrate is well known to the petitioner who arranges functions which the complainant Muthukrishna lyer and the Magistrate attend. The said Aravamuda lyengar is said to be a friend of the complainant, Muthukrishna lyer. On account of their friendship it was suggested that Aravamuda lyengar who was man of considerable influence was securing witnesses for the complainant and the said Aravamuda lyengar being a rowdy and considered to be a bad element, It was stated that the respondent apprehended he would not have a fair and impartial trial and the interests of justice re-quired that the case must be transferred from the file of the Magistrate before whom it is pending.
2. The question is whether the allegation made by the respondent in the affidavit for transfer is protected by the exception 9 to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The First Class Magistrate found the respondent guilty and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 60 but in appeal the learned Sessions Judge disagreed with the decision and acquitted the respondent of the offence of defamation. At the trial the accused, to support his case that the petitioner herein as a bad element and is a rowdi, sum- moned certain police records from the office of the Deputy Superintendent of police, Chingleput, parti-cuary the inspection report of the Uttiramerur police station by the Deputy Superintendent ofPolice, part IV relating to one Aravamuda lyengar maintained at the Uttiramerur station for the period 1938 to 1948 and also part I relating to Aravamuda lyengar maintained by the Uttiramerur police for the period of 1938 to 1948. A privilege was claimed by the police and the privilege was upheld. The petitioner herein also supported the plea of privilege at the trial Court and in fact wanted the Court not to look into the records of the police. But in appeal, the learned Sessions Judge has looked into the records of the police and he states that in the police records, parts I and IV of the Uttiramerur station for the period 1938 to 1948 the name of the petitioner, Aravamuda lyengar, had been entered. The names of the persons entered in Parts I and IV are only those of the troublesome persons who-are disturbers of peace. Their movements-have to be watched. Finally the learned Sessions Judge held that the records bear out the allegations that the petitioner is a rowdy. He acquitted the respondent herein finding that the accused made the allegation for the purpose of self-protection and that he acted in good faith. It is against this acquittal that the complainant has preferred this revision.
3. After the admission of the revision, the petitioner filed another petition herein and asked for the documents in Parts I and IV of the police records to be sent for . They were accordingly sent for and a perusal of the records bears out the allegation that the petitioner, Aravamuda lyengar is a person of bad character. After calling for the records and after a perusal of the records by me it is contended by Mr. Nara-simhachariar that these documents are absolutely privileged and they cannot be looked into. if documents were really said to be privileged documents as is now contended for, I do not see why he should have made an application for calling: for the records. At a time when he made this application it is obvious that he thought and believed that there is no statement in the records that the said Aravamuda lyengar is a rowdy and the version of the respondent is false. But when he found that the records did not support his case, he has turned round and has attempted to argue-that they are absolutely privileged documents and they could not be looked into. I do not think I can permit this contention to be advanced after he himself has asked for the calling of the documents and asked the Court to look Into them. It is not open to him now to say that the documents are privileged ones because the entries in them happen to be against him. I, therefore, overrule his objection. On a perusal I am satisfied that the description of the petitioner amounts to his being a rowdi and the description is not without justification. The only other question is whether the respondent can make the allegation In an affidavit for transfer. It is clear from the affidavit filed by the respondent in this case that his case was that this petitioner, on account of his influence which was secured in undesirable ways, was using It against the respondent by securing witnesses' against him and that he was very friendly not only with Muthukrishna lyer but with the Magistrate and was using this friendship to the determent of the respondent herein. I cannot say that this allegation was not made for the protection of the interest of the respondent herein. The reputation of the petitioner bears out clearly the truth that this respondent has made the allegation in good faith. The allegation is, therefore, clearlycovered by exception 9 of Section 499, Indian Penal 'Code. In this view, the learned Sessions Judge was right in acquitting the respondent of the offence of defamation.
4. This revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.