R RAMASRINIVASAN Vs. P SHANMUGHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE proceeding before us is a simple one in essence, and the facts are within a restricted scope. But it involves one question of some significance, on the principles which have to be applied when the State claims privilege under Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 162 of that Act, with regard to the production of a record, viz. in this case, the record by a police officer, under departmental instructions, of a public speech made by a citizen.

(2.) VERY briefly stated, the affidavit of the petitioner (Ramasrinivasan) is to the effect that the respondent (P. Shanmugbam, M. L. A.) addressed a public meeting on 5th May 1968 at Pondicherry, during the course of which meeting, inter alia, he referred to the actions of a certain Sri Farook Maricar, while that gentleman was chief Minister of the State, in wreaking vengeance upon those who were responsible for his downfall. He is then supposed to have said, according to the affidavit of the petitioner, that "the case of Jeevarathina Udayar is one of such instances". It is not disputed that at that time, there was a case against a certain jeevarathina Udayar, with respect to a very grave offence, pending committal enquiry in the court of the First Class Magistrate, Pondicherry. It is claimed that this constitutes grave contempt of Court, as such a statement is calculated to affect the administration of justice.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit of the respondent he denies that he made any such statement or reference, and, on the contrary, he claims that some one in the crowd asked him (the speaker) a question about Jeevarathina Udayar's case being another instance of the wreaking of vengeance, that he then explained that the matter was pending before a court of law and sub judice, and that it would not be proper to discuss it at a public meeting. As it was brought to our notice that, under the departmental instructions of the Inspector General of Police, Pondicherry, an officer had been deputed to attend this meeting, and to make a shorthand transcript of this speech, notice was issued to that authority, viz. the Inspector general to produce this transcript. The learned Public Prosecutor for Pondicherry, appearing for the Inspector General of Police, has now produced the transcript, in a sealed cover, and pleaded privilege with regard to its production, under Section 123 and Section 162 of the Indian Evidence Act.