HAJI AHMAD HUSAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An anonymous complaint was made against a Sub-Inspector of Police that he committed an offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the applicant and it was investigated by a Deputy Superintendent of Police in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Deputy Superintendent in the course of the investigation interrogated people including the applicant, who made a statement in reply to his querries, to the effect that he was beaten by the Sub-Inspector and was compelled by him to pay him a bribe. The Deputy Superintendent, as the result of his investigation, recommended proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act against the Sub-Inspector; in the report he said that the Sub-Inspector had tried to suborn some of the persons who were likely to give evidence against him. Proceedings under Section 7, Police Act. were commenced against the Sub-Inspector and then he filed a complaint against the applicant for the offence of Section 500, I. P. C.; alleging that the statement made by him to the Deputy Superintendent during the investigation was defamatory. The Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and tried the applicant; in the meantime the proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act were stayed, though it is not known under whose order and on what ground. The trial Court found that the applicant committed the offence of defamation by making the statement against the Sub-Inspector and convicted him. His conviction has been maintained on appeal.

(2.) It was contended by Sri Bhagwan Das Gupta that the statement made by the applicant during the investigation was a privileged statement and could not form the basis of a charge of defamation. The law regarding criminal defamation is laid clown exhaustively in Sections 499 and 500 I. P. C. There arc no exceptions to criminal defamation other than those contained in exceptions 1 to 10 to Section 499. Every defamatory statement not coming within any of the exceptions is punishable under Section 500. None of the exceptions exempts a defamatory statement from punishment on the ground of any privilege; the word ''privilege" is not used in any of them. It is a finding of fact that the statement made by the applicant was a defamatory statement and he would be guilty unless his case came under some exception. The only exception that could apply to the statement made by him is exception 8; it is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over him with respect to the subject-matter of the accusation. The applicant made the accusation against the Sub-Inspector to the Deputy Superintendent, who had lawful authority over the Sub-Inspector with respect to the subject-matter of the accusation. The subject-matter of the accusation was that the Sub-Inspector had beaten and extorted a bribe from the applicant and the Deputy Superintendent was making an investigation into that very accusation and when making the investigation he had lawful authority over the Sub-Inspector. Consequently if the accusation made by the applicant to the Deputy Superintendent was made in good faith, it did not amount to defamation. It has been found as a matter of fact by the Courts below that the accusation was false and I cannot go into the question whether the finding is correct or not because I am not sitting in appeal over it. Once the accusation is found to be false, it necessarily follows that it was not made in good faith. Since it is false the applicant knew that he was not beaten by the Sub-Inspector and was not made to pay him a bribe and could not in good Faith state before the Deputy Superintendent that he had been beaten and made to pay a bribe. No plea of good faith can be advanced in respect of a matter which was false within the knowledge of the person making it. The applicant, therefore, could not claim exemption under exception 8.

(3.) There is no other law under which he could claim exemption from the law of criminal defamation. Reliance was placed by Sri Bhagwan Das Gupta on Section 132, Evidence Act. That provision does not apply to a statement made by a person during an investigation under Section 161 Cr. P. C. It compels a witness to answer all relevant questions that are put to him in any suit or in any civil or criminal proceeding, and exempts him from prosecution except for perjury. An investigation under Ch. XIV, Cr. P. C. may be a proceeding but is certainly not a suit or a civil or criminal proceeding. A person who is interrogated under Section 161 by a police officer making an investigation is not a witness. Section 161 authorises a police officer making an investigation to examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. All sorts of persons can be said to be supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. They may be supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case because they are the victims of the offence under investigation or they are the persons who committed it or they are the persons who saw it being committed or they are the persons who have heard somthing about it or they are the persons who are acquiantcd with relevant facts. Section 161 makes no distinction between one person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and another. It does not divide them into the classes of complainants, accused persons and witnesses; instead they are all interrogatees. Therefore, the word "witness" used in Section 132, Evidence Act, does not refer to any interrogatee examined by a police officer under Section 161; it refers only to a person who enters the witness-box and is sworn as a witness. The applicant was not a witness when he made the defamatory statement against the Sub-Inspector and was not entitled to the privilege of exemption from the liability for any prosecution except that for perjury conferred by Section 132, Evidence Act. If he had made the defamatory statement while giving evidence against the Sub-Inspector as a witness he would have been exempt from prosecution for defamation.