DEVBRATA SHASTRI Vs. KRISHNA BALLABH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision arises in the following circumstance : Shri Krishna Ballabh Sahay, Revenue Minister, Government of Bihar, instituted a complaint against the petitioner, who happens to be the chief editor of a daily newspaper at Patna, known as Navarashtra, in the court of a magistrate at Hazaribagh alleging that there was a defamatory publication in that newspaper concerning the complainant which lowered him in the estimation of the public, for which the editor was liable to be punished under Section 500, Penal Code. The case was transferred from Hazaribagh to Patna under the orders of this Court and placed before Mr. S. C. Gupta, Judicial Magistrate, for trial. The trial was duly taken up, and while the complainant was under cross -examination, the defence lawyer put certain questions to the complainant in respect of his general reputation with a view to eliciting that the general reputation of the complainant was such that the petitioner committed no offence in publishing the correspondence in question respecting the case against one Zahur Ali, yarn importer, whose house at Ranchi was raided by the police on 16.5.1951. It is unnecessary to state the details of the case against Zahur Ali or the actual defamatory matter contained in the correspondence of 8.7.1951, and the correction note in regard to that correspondence published in the issue of the newspaper of 11.7.1951, because that concerns the merits of the case under trial before Mr. S. C. Gupta, Judicial Magistrate.

(2.) THE order complained of in the present petition is dated 22.7.1952, by which the learned Magistrate disposed of the application of the learned defence lawyer dated 10.7.1952, and in substance negatived his prayer that he was entitled to ask questions in general concerning the character and reputation of the complainant so as to show that it was already of such a type that the news item or correspondence complained of could not lower it further, and hence the publication by the editor did not bring him within the mischief of Section 500, Penal Code. The petitioner thereafter moved the learned Sessions Judge of Patna for making a reference to this Court for setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate and giving a direction that the petitioner's advocate should be permitted to carry on the cross -examination along the line he was seeking to do. The first Additional Sessions Judge of Patna, who heard the application, however, refused to make a reference on the ground that the application was directed against an interlocutory order, and as such, he was not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner. He, however, made certain observations, which were more or less along the line which was followed by the learned Magistrate.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has raised in the present petition the points which were pressed before the learned magistrate as well. He has drawn our attention in this connection to a number of decisions, which, according to him supported his contention that in the case of a prosecution under Section 500, Penal Code, it is open to the accused person to put questions to the complainant not only with regard to his veracity or to impeach his credit, but also to show the type of reputation the complainant enjoyed in public estimation. Learned Counsel has formulated his argument in broad terms like this. Section 499, Penal Code, which defines defamation, reads as follows :