KUSANA KAROO Vs. RAJARAM PAIKU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision of the appellate judgment of acquittal of the non-applicants of the offences punishable under Sections 211 and 500, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge has found that the accused did not make a report against the complainant to the Sub-Inspector (P. W. 2) but they answered certain questions put to them by him during investigations and consequently they cannot, be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 211, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) AS regards the offences under Section 500 the t learned Judge has held that the answers in investigation are absolutely privileged and cannot be the subject-matter of the charge for defamation. The learned Judge, who has not referred to any principle or precedent, had probably in mind the rule of English common law according to which a witness in a Court of justice is absolutely privileged as to anything he may say as a witness having reference to the enquiry on which he is called as a witness. This rule of absolute privilege has not been adopted in this country. Satish Chandra v. Ram Doyal 48 Cal 388 (SB) and Shanta Bai v. Umrao Amir 50 Bom 162 (FB); Surajmal v. Ramnath AIR (15) 1928 Nag 58.