RADHA GOVINDA DUTTA Vs. SAILA KUMAR MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule has been obtained by two persons who were tried foe having defamed the Chairman of the Howarh Municipality. They were convicted and sentenced to pay certain fines, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for certain terms. Out of the fines compensation was directed to be paid to the complainant. The decision of the trial Court was upheld in appeal by the Sessions Judge and it is with respect to the last decision that the present rule has been obtained.

(2.) The facts briefly are as follows : The accused Radha Gobinda Dutta was the Editor and the accused Lakshmi Kanta Bhattacharjee was the printer of a Bengali daily newspaper known as the Paschim Banga Patrika. On 8th July 1948 an article was published in that paper in the form of a questionnaire. This is Ex. 1. It is the case for the prosecution that this article defamed the complainant Saila Kumar Mukherjee, the Chairman of the Howarh Municipality and that the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 500, Penal Code. The defence taken is that the questionnaire which admittedly was published in that newspaper did not contain any defamatory matter, that is to Say, it did not contain any matter which may be described as making any imputation regarding the complainant which would harm his reputation. Next, the defence was that the accused were protected by Exceptions 1, 2, 3, and 9 mentioned in Section 499, Penal Code, which defines the offence of defamation. As I have stated before both the Courts below have rejected the defences. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioners gives up the defence of Exception 2, and he relies upon all the other defences taken in the Courts below. The learned Sessions Judge in a very detailed and able judgment has discussed all the points raised by the defence and he has come to the conclusion that the statements contained in Ex. 1 are defamatory and that none of the Exceptions can be availed of by the accused. In my view this decision is perfectly correct. I shall first deal with the question whether the statements published in Ex. 1 come within the mischief of Section 499, Penal Code. In this connection certain Surrounding circumstances must be considered. A few days prior to the publication, leaflets were distributed in Howarh containing imputations against the complainant which are clearly defamatory and indeed on this point there was no dispute. This leaflet is Ex 2. Now, the leaflet and the so called questionnaire published in the Paschim Banga Patrika should be considered together and if they are considered together it becomes abundantly clear that the questions contained in the Paschim Banga Patrika, although they were in the form of mere questions, were defamatory in character. I reproduce below the leaflet Ex. 2 leaving out certain paragraphs therein which are not relevant to the case and also the questionnaire Ex. 1: Exhibit 2. "A few questions about the Howrah Municipality. Will the Chairman Saila Babu reply? Sri Saila Kumar Mukherjee, the Congress Chairman, of the Howrah Municipality tries to extort cheap praise by speaking at intervals in throatful voice about laudable long range and short range schemes for the betterment of the Howrah Municipality. But the following few facts will clearly manifest his depth of feeling for the betterment of the Municipality. We hope Saila Babu will have sufficient moral courage to refute the facts, if groundless, by his replies. 1. After the self-immolation of Mahatma Gandhi arrangements were made for a Sradha Basar at the Howrah Town Hall. Newspapers and handbills published by the Municipality indicate that it was held under the auspices of the Municipality and the Chairman of the Municipality Sri Saila Kumar Mukherjee himself raised about Rs. 13,500 (Thirteen thousand and a half) for this function from wealthy persons, rich marwaris and the public. But he has not as yet submitted any account to the Municipal Meeting. Questioned he says this function has no connection with the Municipality and thus he evades. Will he, without any further delay, submit an account to the public? 2. It is known to us that the expenses of the case of the Commissioners of the Howrah Municipality against Mr. Nomani appointed by the late Government of Bengal that rolled up to the Privy Council were by the citizens of Howrah and some Commissioners personally. Government lost the case and about Rs. 11000 (Eleven thousand) was allowed as costs. But we have been astonished to hear that Saila Babu has misappropriated the said amount of Rs. 11000 (Eleven thousand). What is the reply of Saila Babu to this ?

(3.) It is true that for some special reason be appeared at the appeal Committee at the time when the question of assessment of the Allenberry Workshop run by Messrs. Dalmia Jain was being decided and reduced the valuation of only the Allenbery Company from Rs. 83,065 to Rs. 61,936. What is the reason of reducing the three monthly income by Rs. 1000? It is heard that just after this Saila Babu purchased a motor car cheap. Is it true?