HANUMAN Vs. BHONRILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against an order of acquittal.

(2.) The petitioner filed a complaint against the opposite party Bhonrilal in the Court of City Magistrate, Jaipur, on 24-9-1949, on the allegations that the complainant was the pujari of the temple of Shri Sitaramji and Shri Laxminarainji situated near Ghat Gate and the accused also lives close by. It was alleged that the accused had enmity towards the complainant & had been telling people that the complainant does not perform sewa puja properly and had kept a brothel in the temple which had accordingly disgraced him in the eyes, of the people. It was also alleged that the accused had on more than one occasion abused him filthily and had threatened to beat him. The complainant wanted the Court to take action against the accused under Sections 504, 503, 352, I. P. C., and Sections 108, Criminal P. C. The complaint was passed on to the First Assistant City Magistrate and it appears that in that Court the complainant restricted his complaint to a statement by the accused before the Charity Department on 16-9-1949 in which besides making a complaint as to neglect of the complainant in performing sewa puja it was alleged, that the doors of the temple remained closed during the day and there was 'addabazi' in the temple-inasmuch as one person went there and another came out of it. It was further stated that the complainant had illegal connection with his son's wife. The accused admitted having made the statement in the Charity Department but pleaded that it was true and that he had done so in the interest of the public.

(3.) The trial Court after evidence held that the insinuation about irregularity in sewa puja or the existence of 'addabazi' was not defamatory but as regards the third insinuation, although the accused had not been able to prove that the accusation was true, yet there were reasonable grounds for the accused to believe it to be true and that in making the statement before the Charity Department he had done so in public interest, and, therefore, he was protected by exception 9 of Section 499, I. P. C. He was accordingly acquitted.