SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. H K S MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is employed as an Inspector in Delhi Police. In July 1976 he v-'as posted as an Inspector in AntiCorruption Branch of Delhi Police. On 1st July, 1976, he lad a trap against one Raj Singh on the complaint of one Ram Chander for demanding illegal gratification. Raj Singh was subsequently tried under the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred lo as the Act), being case No. 50176. State v. Raj Singh in the Court of Shri D.C. Aggarwal, Special Judge, on 18th November, 1977 the petitioner was examined as a prosecution witness being the investigating Officer. During the course of his cross-examination. he, inter alia, deposed that :

(2.) On coming to know of it, the respondent then posted as Additional District Sessions Judge at Delhi instituted a complaint. against the .petitioner in December 1977 under sectin 500, Indian Penal Code, for defamation. He inter alia .averred that the petitioner was posted as Station House.Officer, Kingsway Camp 1975. On 30th.July, 1975, he tortured to.death on Harnam Singh, a retired School teacher of Kingsway Camp even though there was no FIR.against,.him, An.attempt was made to dispose of. the dead body without postmortem examination. The respondent intervened and. postmortem examination had to be carried out. Consequently, an inquiry under the Punjab Police, Rules was instituted and the respondent was examined as a witness in that inquiry on 14th June, 1976, by the S. D. M. Kingsway Camp. .The S.D.M found the accused prima facie guilty of murder and submitted his report I accordingly. Eventually, acase under Section 302, Indiain penal Code, being F.I.R. No. 1009 was registered against the petitioner on 9th September, 1977 and the respondent was mentioned therein as the prime mover. The respondent further alleged that the petitioner had been trying to prevent him from appearing as a witness against him in the said case since July 1976 and he had conveyed even.threats. Further, the petitioner met the respondent personally three or four times with a request not to depose as a witness against him but the respondent was not disuaded from doing his dirty. So, the petitioner considers the respondent as his enemy. On 31st October, 1977, the respondent learnt of a plan to murder him at night and he took immediate precautions. However, one SatpalSharma,who was an eye witness in the aforesaid murder case, was brutally stabbed on that night. But he survived just by providence. Since.then.the Government had provided security to the respondent for his protection. Thus, the contention of the respondent in the complaint was that the petitioner harboured a grudge against him and, therefore, he made the aforesaid statement in the Court of the Special Judge with a view to harm the reputation of the respondent. He asserted that the aforesaid statement carried, inter alia, an imputation that the respondent was a person of depraved moral character as to commit acts' which constituted offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. While denying each and every imputation made against him by the petitioner, he asserted that the same had been made intentionally and knowingly to lower the moral character of the respondent in the estimation of others. In order to substantiate his contention he extracted the following passage from the judgment dated 26th November, 1977, of Shri D. C. Aggarwal, Special Judge, in the above mentioned case :

(3.) It was urged by the respondent that the impression formed by the defamatory statement in the mind of the Special Judge was indicative of the harm caused to his reputation by the same.