A K GOPALAN Vs. V MARIARPUTHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner Shri. A.K. Gopalan was convicted of the offence of defamation under S.500 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a file of

(2.) The charge against him was that he defamed Shri. V. Mariarputham, Officiating Superintendent of Police in a speech made by him at the Kidangamparambu Maidan, Alleppey on 23-10-1958 on the Vayalar-Punnappra Martyrs Day. The accused is alleged to have dwelt upon the police firing at Munnar and stated that Shri. Mariarputham accepted bribes from the estate owners to please whom he ordered firing. The offending speech was published in a leading Malayalam daily paper The Kerala Kaumudi. The portion of the report containing the alleged defamatory imputations is marked as Ext. P-2 and is in brief to the following effect:-Shri. Mariarputham, a Police Officer is standing by the old traditions of the police in accepting bribes from the capitalists and molesting the labourers. Many more Mariarputhams of this type are in the police department. Such Mariarputhams should not only be dismissed from service but should be clapped behind iron bars. Aggrieved at this attempt to defame him the complainant issued a lawyers notice to the accused to which he got a reply which he did not find satisfactory and so the matter was brought to court. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied having made any personal imputations against the complainant though he admitted that he had criticised the police in general and their handling of the strike situation at Munnar in particular.

(3.) Only one ground was seriously urged in this revision. It was argued that the offending speech was not proved in court by the witnesses repeating the identical words uttered by the accused or even words analogous to those of the accused but the evidence given by them is only about the impression created in their minds by the speech. This contention is evidently inspired by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Bhola Nath v. Emperor, AIR 1929 Allahabad 1. In that case Mukerji, J. observed that:-