S ANTONY Vs. G S NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT S. Antony- retired from the army as a captain. In the course of his giving evidence in a defamation case against him and others he was cross-examined by P. W. 4, Sri V. N. Narasinga Rao, advocate for accused in this case, and two defamatory questions were put to him, namely, that he ran from the operation field in 1943 and came to India on foot and that as President of the Ex-Serviceman Club, Vellore, he misappropriated the radio, blanket and cot belonging to the club. The learned District Magistrate rightly found that those suggestions made to the appellant were defamatory and that the accused was not entitled to either exception (1) or exception (9) to Section 499 I. P. C. claimed by him. The first suggestion really means that the appellant was deserter. There can be no doubt that the two suggestions are clearly defamatory.

(2.) LEARNED advocate for the accused made a feeble attempt to show that the defamatory statements were true. But I see no reason to differ from the finding of the learned District Magistrate that there is no basis for the accusations made against the appellant and that the justification by truth could hardly be invoked on the facts proved in this case.

(3.) THE main question argued in this appeal is whether the conviction could be sustained on the evidence of P. W. 4 in view of the privilege conferred under Section 126 of the Evidence Act in respect of communications made by a client to his advocate The records do not show that any such privilege was claimed when P. W. 4 came to give evidence. It should be noted that the privilege under Section 126 of the Evidence Act could be waived by the express consent of the client. But as there is no proof of any express consent in this case, I shall deal with the decisions relied on in this case.