ORDER
Prafulla C. Pant, J.
1. Heard.
This Revision, preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order dated 4-10-1988, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1985, whereby conviction under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, passed against the accused (present revisionist) by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 302 of 1984, is upheld.
2. Prosecution story in brief is that the complainant-Pyare Mohan Labru (P. W. 1) is a manufacturer of ink. Accused/revisionist-Mangana Nand is a Postman. In July, 1982, a letter appears to have been sent by one Shri S. K. Goyal, Advocate, addressed to complainant-Pyare Mohan Labru, which was to be handed over by the accused/revisionist to him for delivery of the same. But the complainant Pyare Mohan did not receive the registered letter on which the Postman (accused), recorded the following report of the envelope of the registered letter:
ikus okys dk fnekx [kjkc gks x;k gSA og gj le; xkfy;k nsrk jgrk gs mlds ?kj tkuk [krjukd gSA vr% i= vkj0vkbZ0 }kjk forfjr djk;k tk;A
The complainant appears to have made a complaint, alleging that he has been defamed and insulted by the accused by making the aforesaid endorsement. On said complaint before the Magistrate, the trial Court after examining complainant and witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, summoned the accused for his trial in connection with the alleged offence, punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. After recording the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant and putting the same to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the trial Court recorded the evidence, adduced in defence, on behalf of the accused. The trial Court found that the accused Mangana Nand is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to two months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by said order dated 9-4-1985, the accused preferred an appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1985. The said appeal appears to have been transferred to Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, who after hearing the parties, upheld the conviction but modified the sentence from two months simple imprisonment to fine of Rs. 1,500/-. In default of payment of said fine, the appellate Court directed the appellant (present revisionist) to undergo two months simple imprisonment. This revision has been preferred against said orders.
3. The offence of defamation is defined in Section 499 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, which provides that ‘whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person. There are four explanations and ten exceptions to this provision in Section 499. In short, after reading whole of the Section, it can be said that defamation means a publication of a false statement about a man to discredit him without any legal justification or excuse there for.
4. In the present case, the above mentioned endorsement made by the Postman (accused) is an admitted fact but in defence he has made attempts to explain by adducing evidence that on 27-7-1982, when he went to deliver the letter to the complainant, he was not found in his house again the accused (Postman) went to deliver the letter on 28-7-1982 and on that date complainant, Pyare Mohan misbehaved with him and hurled abuses at him. Further again on 29-7-1982, the complainant misbehaved and hurled abuses at the Postman (accused). Statements of D. W. 1 Prakashwati and D. W. 2 were got recorded on this point.
5. 9th exception to Section 499, reads as under:
Ninth Exception – Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’s interests – 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 interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public goods.
Illustrations
(a) A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business – ‘Sell nothing to Z unless he pays you ready money, for I have no opinion of his honesty’. A is within the exception, if he has made this imputation on Z in good faith for the protection of his own interests.
(b) A, a Magistrate, in making a report of his own superior officer, casts an imputation on the character of Z. Here, if the imputation is made in good faith, and for the public good, A is within the exception.
6. The report of the Postman about the conduct of the complainant on the basis of his experience on vesting on him to deliver the letter, in the opinion of this Court, are covered in the ninth Exception to Section 499, quoted above. The accused appears to have made the observation in good faith for the protection of his own interest. He was required to make a report as to why the letter was not delivered to the addressee else he would have invited action for not discharging his duty. As such in the opinion of this Court the act of revisionist is covered under ninth exception of Section 499 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
7. In the above circumstances and for the reasons as discussed above, both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have committed error of law in convicting and sentencing the revisionist under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, in view of the said illegality, the revision deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are set aside. The accused/revisionist Mangana Nand is acquitted from the charge under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
