Skip to content


Haripado Baidya and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Criminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930Cal645
AppellantHaripado Baidya and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
- .....that the allegations certainly do disclose an offence under section 500, i.p.c. to say that the complainant married a woman who had been married before would obviously be to defame him, for it is admitted that one of the results of having done so would be the excommunication of the complainant from his caste. an imputation which leads to the excommunication of a person from his caste is certainly defamatory to him if he had not been guilty of committing the act. it has been suggested that the case comes within exception 10, section 499, i.p.c. exception 10 is as follows:it is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another provided that such caution is intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed or of some person in whom that person is.....
Judgment:

Cuming, J.

1. In the case out of which this rule has arisen the complainant brought a case against the three petitioners of having defamed him. The facts alleged were that at a certain meeting of the caste the petitioners were alleged to have stated that one Kamini, the complainant's wife had been married before to one Jogendra. The defence apparently was that the statement was true. Both the Courts found that the three petitioners had made the statement alleged and it was not true and found them guilty under Section 500, I.P.C., and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each and in default each to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months.

2. The petitioners moved this Court and obtained what is described an open rule. The grounds that have been urged are grounds 3, 4 and 8 of the petition to this Court. Ground 3 is that the learned trial Magistrate's order was bad in law in so far as he relied solely on the evidence of interested persons unsupported by the testimony of independent witnesses. Certainly it was open to the Magistrate to rely on the evidence of any particular person, be he interested or distinterested.

3. The next point urged is that the order of conviction is bad in law in so far as the allegations do not disclose any offence under Section 500, I.P.C. It is quite clear to my mind that the allegations certainly do disclose an offence under Section 500, I.P.C. To say that the complainant married a woman who had been married before would obviously be to defame him, for it is admitted that one of the results of having done so would be the excommunication of the complainant from his caste. An imputation which leads to the excommunication of a person from his caste is certainly defamatory to him if he had not been guilty of committing the act. It has been suggested that the case comes within exception 10, Section 499, I.P.C. Exception 10 is as follows:

It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another provided that such caution is intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.

4. I admit I entirely fail to see how the present case comes within that exception. Now could Mr. Talukdar satisfactorily show how it comes within the exception? That exception I think deals with cases, for instance, where one man warns another against employing a third person in his service saying that; he is a dishonest person. That is the class of cases which this exception might cover. I entirely fail to see how it covers the present case.

5. Mr. Talukdar then really argued on evidence and evidence only. The case has been considered by two Courts on the questions of fact and both of these Courts have come to the conclusion that the girl Kamini had not been married to Jogendra before. It cannot be said that the Courts did not deal with the evidence before them. The learned Additional Sessions Judge who heard the appeal went so far as to order further evidence to be taken. Therefore it is quite clear that both the Courts had their mind directed to this particular point, and I pee no reason to doffer from them on the findings of fact. Neither does this Court as a rule interfere in revision with the findings of fact unless it can be said that these findings are based on no evidence or are obviously incorrect. But that is: not the case here.

6. The rule must therefore be discharged.

7. The petitioners must now pay the fines imposed upon them.


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