LAWS(BOM)-1941-4-1

VINAYAK ATMARAM PATHARE Vs. SHANTARAM JANARDAN PATHARE

Decided On April 08, 1941
VINAYAK ATMARAM PATHARE Appellant
V/S
SHANTARAM JANARDAN PATHARE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision of an order of acquittal passed by the Presidency Magistrate, Third Additional Court, Bombay. The applicant Vinayak Atmaram Pathare prosecuted the opponent Shantaram. Janardan Pathare for defamation in respect of an article written by him and published in a weekly vernacular newspaper called "Rashtratej." The complainant and the accused are both members of the Pathare Kshatriya community, the members of which live mostly in Bombay and the Kolaba District. The complainant is a journalist, and in a magazine which he publishes called "Udkar" he had made criticisms on one Ramji Laxman Gharat a member of this community, who had presided at a meeting of its members held in August, 1938. These criticisms on Mr. Gharat were resented and on August 21, 1938, there was a meeting of a society called Pathare Kshatriya Vaktrutwottejak Samaj which passed resolutions condemning the complainant. The article, which was the subject of the defamation case, was published in the "Rashtratej" newspaper on September 1, 1938. It purported to give an account of the meeting of the Samaj and the resolutions passed thereat But it was stated that some resolutions were passed which were not, in fact, passed at the meeting. The accused claimed that his conduct in writing this article was privileged and covered by the first exception to Section 499, Indian Penal Code, that is to say, his contention was that the imputation made was true and for the public good. The learned Magistrate accepted this view and acquitted the accused.

(2.) THIS revision application was allowed to stand over to see whether Government proposed to appeal. But there has been no Government appeal and ultimately a Rule was issued. The Government Pleader now appears in these proceedings and says that his instructions are that if any expression of opinion is called for, he should support the application.

(3.) COMING to the merits of the case, the resolutions which were actually passed at the meeting of the Samaj were- (1) that V.A. Pathare (i.e. the complainant) should not be invited for any meeting, gathering or any other function held under the auspices of the Samaj; (2) that if V.A. Pathare attends a meeting or a gathering, he should be turned out; and it was also resolved that a copy of the resolutions should be sent to all secretaries, which means apparently the secretaries of the various branches of the Samaj.