MUNNALAL Vs. D P SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri D.P. Singh, who was at one time Collector and District Magistrate of Gorakhpur, has filed a complaint under Section 500, Penal Code against Shri Munna Lal, the local correspondent of certain newspapers at Gorakhpur. In the complaint, it is alleged that the accused tried to interfere with matters connected with the administration of the district and approached the complainant to seek undue favour of preferential treatment for himself and others, and had to go back disappointed. It is further alleged in the complaint that, in consequence of this disappointment, the accused started carrying on defamatory propoganda against the complainant and the district administration, with a view to lower the complainant in the estimation of the public and with the ultimate object of bringing an indirect pressure upon him, in his capacity of the District Magistrate, to yield to the persuasions of the accused. It is also alleged in the complaint that, in pursuance of his objectionable propoganda against the complainant, the accused maliciously made certain baseless imputations against him in the presence of a number of persons intending, knowing and having reason to believe that the imputations would harm the complainant's reputation and lower him in the estimation of the public.

(2.) The case is pending in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate of Gorakhpur. So far only the complainant has been examined in the case. While the complainant was being cross-examined, the following questions were put to him and disallowed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that they were irrelevant and also because, he thought, "it cannot ever be the purpose of the provisions of the Evidence Act governing cross-examination to make the forum of a case of alleged defamation the forum for several more defamatory allegations." Q. 1--"Kya apne Basti Zila men apne chacha key namsey yah khandan kay kisi doosre admi ka nam sey zamin lekar farm kar rakha hai aur yah zamin apne jab ap Gorakhpur ka A. D. M. yah D. M. the leya ?" Q. 2--"Did the representatives of the public meet you and say that in Gorakhpur B. S. S. and Hindu Mahasabha activities were substantial and the public were in fear and to arrest their workers ?" Q. 3--"Did you disagree with the views of the District Supply Advisory Committee in connection with Cloth and Yarn license recommendations or decision I give yon the instance of Bal Bhanddra Prasad Bankas's case ?" Q. 4--"Was a complaint filed by Gauri Shankar Misra in your Court ?" Q. 5--"Did you take Shri Nisarullah's land under C. U. Act when the entry in the papers was that it was a tenancy land ?" Q. 6--"Did Shri Guptar Misra Vakil in January 1948 criticise the administration of this district in an article to the Press ?"

(3.) The accused filed a revision in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur challenging the validity of the Magistrate's order disallowing the questions. The revision came up for hearing, before the Additional Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur; and it was contended before him that the object of the first five questions was to show that the complainant was an unscrupulous person and did not conscientiously follow the Government orders, and that the object of the last question was to show that the complaint against the applicant was not bona fide, as other persons had also criticised the complainant and no action had been taken against them- A decision of this Court in Laidman v. Hearsay, (1885) A. W. N. 272 : (7 ALL 906) and another decision of the Lahore High Court in Devi Dial v. Crown, A. I. R. (10) 1923 Lah. 225 : (24 Cr. L. J. 693) were cited before him.