SARDAR AMAR SINGH Vs. K S BADALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the complainant is directed against a judgment of acquittal by the Munsif Magistrate, first class, Patna. The complainant has preferred this appeal under Section 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, His case, in brief, was that he was a member nominated by the District Judge, Patna of the supervising Committee of Takht Harmandirji, Patna City, and he was held in high esteem in society by the other nominated and elected members, office bearers and the Public at large. On 21-8-1959 the respondent sent a letter to Sardar Surjit Singhji Majithia, Deputy Defence Minister, Government of India, New Delhi, making baseless and scandalous imputations against the appellant. The appellant alleged in the petition, of complaint that the letter contained defamatory statements which had caused considerable loss of prestige and harm to him. The appellant took strong exception to the following statements made in that letter: What this Sardar Amar Singh was and is, is not unknown to old police officers who are now, at the top posts, and how he has amassed some wealth by hook and by crook, and how he rose from a mere transport worker as Khalasi or driver to the present position. THIS man who barely can sign, has a big gang of Khalasies and drivers and criminals at his command who can be utilised for any purpose at any time. Is it not a fact that Sardar Amar Singh in conjunction with Sardar Arjun Singh, Sardar Sohan Singh and Sardar Ramautar Singh and others devised a scheme to grab properties and engineered false cases and had banked (?) them by false affidavits and statements on oath which had resulted in criminal action against 38 out of 41 witnesses for committing perjury and fabrication of false evidence? Who is the man who managed such a large number of false witnesses and how? Is it not a fact that he is befooling all the members of the Prabandhak Committee for his own ends by his tacts and he along, with Ramautar Singh, the Law Agent, are utilising the Gurudwara funds for their own purposes out of litigation costs and Sardar Amar Singh utilising the services of the law Agent and Gurdwara for his own cases and that is why he is interested in litigations. A thorough scrutiny of case accounts along with case diaries and order sheets will convince you about these facts and how Gurdwara funds are being utilised for personal gains. There are dozens of personal cases of Amar Singh and they are being supervised by Ramautar Singh and that is why he is a daily attender of courts. Is it not a fact that he by keeping some criminals and bullies, is playing a roll of 'king Makers' in the management and the gentry keeping aside being afraid of inviting unnecessary troubles to themselves by opposing him, as many have met in the past. Who is responsible for bringing in Gurbachan Singh Funchia as member and President of Curdwara Management and this Punchia being convicted of theft of Government properties is absconding still? Who engineered criminal false cases against Major Lochan Singh, the then P. M. G. Bihar and President of the Gurdwara Supervising Committee and Bhai Bhagwan Singh, the then Manager through Bir Singh a disgruntled and dismissed servant of the Gurdwara and banked (?) that on false evidence ? Were they bad people or they become hindrance to his nefarious activities which were responsible for disrepute to the Management? The learned Magistrate in his judgment has held this man responsible for all troubles. Many gentlemen have been insulted, humiliated and put to unnecessary troubles and harassments and humiliation. Those who opposed him or criticised his conducts as the undersigned is suffering at his instance. And all these for what, whether to serve the Gurdwara honourably or serve himself in the name of Gurudwara? Can the Gurdwara Management engage criminals and bullies as employees as is the case at present? If an account into the incidents of the Gurdwara is taken it will be exposed who is what? His case was that these imputations were purposely made by the respondent with a view to defame him inasmuch as ha (respondent) knew full well that there was no justification for those defamatory statements. The respondent further intended that the said letter should be read by others. The appellant got this letter dated 21-8-1939 from the General Secretary of the Parbandhak Committee of Takht Harmandirji and produced it in Court along with his petition of complaint. The appellant filed a petition of complaint before the Subdivisional Magistrate, Patna City. On 15-12-1959 and on the same date he was examined by the Magistrate on solemn affirmation.

(2.) A charge was framed against the respondent under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and the respondent was put on trial.

(3.) ON a consideration of the evidence, the Magistrate held that the prosecution failed to prove that the letter in question was either typed at the instance of the respondent or it bore the signature of the respondent. He thus held that that letter was inadmissible and it could not be taken into consideration. His other conclusion was that the said latter was not intended to be published at all by the writer of the same and the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence for proving publication, His other finding was that the prosecution did not prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defamatory expressions had harmed the prestige of the appellant. Lastly, he took the view that the letter in question came within the purview of Exception 8 to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and on that score as well the letter, even if written by the respondent, did not make him guilty of the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of these conclusions, he acquitted the respondent. Hence the complainant has preferred this criminal appeal.