SATIS CHANDRA CKAKRABARTI Vs. RAM DAYAL DE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the 11th July 1919 Satis Chandra Chakrabarti, the petitioner in the present Rule, made an application to this Court and prayed that disciplinary action might be taken against Mr. Ramdayal De. a Vakil of this Court, who had acted on behalf of one Chandra Kumar Chakrabarti with whom he had been involved in a protracted litigation, It is not necessary for our present purpose to narrate the history or review the progress of that litigation; it is sufficient to state that the application made by the petitioner contained grave charges of misconduct against Mr. De. The application was supported by an affidavit which recited that the facts mentioned in the petition were true to the knowledge of the deponent except those contained in paragraphs 10, 25 and 27, and that a part of paragraphs 4, 47 and 50 were true to his information and belief. The application was heard in the first instance by Fletcher and Duval, JJ. On the 17th July 1919 the matter was referred to the Government Pleader for inquiry and report. On the 25th July, Mr. De was called upon to submit an explanation within three weeks, which he did, on the 10th November 1919. The question was thereafter considered by Sanderson, C.J., and Flecther, J., who, on the 3rd December 1919, came to the conclusion that no disciplinary action could be taken upon the application. On the 15th March 1920 Mr. De moved this Court for sanction to prosecute Satis Chandra Chakrabarti for offences under Sections 181 and 193, Indian Penal Code, alleged to have been committed by him in respect of the statements made in paragraphs 52 and 22 of the application to this Court on the 11th July 1919. This application for sanction was refused by Sanderson, C.J., and Walmsley, J. Meanwhile, on the 24th February 1920, Mr. De had lodged a complaint in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate against Satish Chandra Chakrabarti with a view to prosecute him for an offence under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, in respect of the following nine statements selected from the petition of the 11th July 1919: (1) That the said Vakil, when the suit No. 53 of 1910 (Probate Case) was pending in the Judge s Court at Chittagong after remand, offered money to Prasanna Kumar Singh, the Kabiraj, the witness No. 1, who deposed on 20th July 1914 and Radha Govinda Bhattacharyya, witness No. 9, who deposed on 23rd July 1914, to depose falsely, and paid Probhat Chandra Bose, witness No. 10, to depose falsely and strongly on behalf of his side. (2) That the said Vakil, since the institution of the pending Revocation Case No. 11 of 1918, frequently goes to Chittagong and there bribed some of the witnesses and attempted to bribe the others, amongst Romjan Ali, Dalilar Rohman, Uma Charan Dhupi, Achlam Khan, Sarada Kumar Dey, who were served with summonses. He also tried to raise a few witnesses on payment of money to adduce false evidence against the petitioner. (3) That Babu Ramdayal De, who was always bent upon wrongly getting hold of the property of the testator, instigated the said decree-holders (Ramdayal Pal and Bhairab Chandra De) to execute their decree for about Rs. 6,000, knowing well that it would not be probable for your petitioner to pay up at once such a large amount, in which case Babu Ramdayal De would be able to purchase some of the properties of the testator and father of the petitioners and other executors at a small price. (4) That Babu Ramdayal De, intentionally, and, in order to win the case, misprinted in the paper-book (of Appeal from Original Decrees Nos. 438 and 580 of 1914) many other things (that is, than those referred to in paragraphs 44 and 45) which were material for the case. (5) When the judgment of the Honourable High Court was forwarded to the District Judge, it transpired that the names of Babu Ramdayal De and the first point of appeal decided were of different ink and of different hand, thereby probably Babu Ramdayal De tried to omit his name from list of appellant s Pleaders and to raise a suspicion in the mind of the District Judge that the petitioner and other executors were not appointed executors though the first point decided in favour of the petitioner.. and the petitioner believes it was managed by Babu Ramdayal De, the said judgment not to be forwarded with the original record, though there was an urgent order for Bending the record to the District Judge in that judgment itself. (6)....it is his duty to teach the witnesses and see the record and draft big volumes of false application. (7) That petitioner understood that every Court now a days is very liberal to the reduction of rate of interest and grant easy installment to the debtors, but the petitioner is so unfortunate that he is unable to get any consideration of the other Court. So the petitioner believes that it is by the influence of Babu Ramdayal De, Vakil, High Court. (8) That Babu Ramdayal De came down to Mirsarai and opposed the petitioner s agents and peons from realising rent during the expiry of the year 1280 M.E. and then came down to Chittagong, stayed there three or four days, during which, through his agent Indra Singh, he intimated with the witnesses of the pending Revocation case and induced them with payment and offering money to give false evidence against the petitioner, one of the witnesses Nisi Chandra Dey who also told the petitioner the story. (9) That there is nothing impossible for Babu Ramdayal De, so the petitioner most humbly prays for an order for safe custody of his letters, envelopes Exhibits E, F, L, M, S, T, and U, V and W and the original note written by Babu Surendea Nath Das which is exhibited and marked P, and for an urgent order to keep some of the paper books in Appeals NOR, 580 and 438 of 1914 in the safe custody.

(2.) It may be mentioned here that one of these statements, namely, No. 8, is one of the two statements included in the subsequent application by Mr. De for sanction to prosecute Satis Chandra Chakrabarti, Statements Nos. 4, 6 and 9 were, but statements Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 were not, covered by the affidavit appended to the application of the 11th July 1919. On the 3rd May 1920, Satis Chandra Chakrabarti applied to this Court and obtained the present Rule with a view to quash the proceedings in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate on the ground that the alleged defamatory statements were absolutely privileged, as they were contained in a petition presented to this Court in the exercise of its disciplinary jurisdiction. The Rule was argued in the first instance before Walmsley and Buckland, JJ., who were of opinion that in view of the importance of the question involved, namely, whether statements contained in an application to this Court upon which a charge of defamation is based are absolutely privileged, it should be considered by a Special Bench. The present Bench has accordingly been constituted, with the concurrence of the Full Court, to hear the Rule.

(3.) The determination of the matter in controversy depends upon the true construction of Section 499, Indian Penal Code, which contains four explanations and ten exceptions: Channing Arnold v. Emperor . No reference need be made to the explanations, as there can be no reasonable doubt as to the meaning and effect of the imputations contained in the statements. Nor need we consider the scope of any of the exceptions, except the eighth and the ninth which alone bear upon the question under consideration. Consequently, the statutory provision relevant for the decision of this matter may be formulated as follows: Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. Eighth Exception--It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation. Illustrations If A. in good faith accuses Z. before a Magistrate; if A. in good faith complains of the conduct of Z., a servant, to Z. s master; if A. in good faith complains of the conduct of Z., a child, to Z. s father--A. is within this exception. Ninth Exception,--It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another, provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good. Illustrations. (a) A., a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business Sell nothing to Z., unless he pays you ready money, for I have no opinion of his honesty. A. is within the exception, if he has made this imputation on Z. in good faith for the protection of his own interest. (b) A, a Magistrate, in making a report to his superior officer, casts an imputation on the character of Z, Here, if the imputation is made in good faith and for the public good, A, is within the exception.