RAM KIRAT KAMKAR Vs. BISESWAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for defamation which suit, in my opinion, was wholly misconceived. The plaintiff complains that the defendants, who were a number of villagers, placed a petition before the Magistrate making allegations against him of oppressive treatment as a landlord, allegations that he oppressed his poor tenants in every possible way, that he extorted from them illegal cesses, that he took up the parti land which was used by them for grazing and that he closed their village paths and so on. It is said, and it has been held as a fact by the District Judge, that these allegations were devoid of foundation. Furthermore, the District Judge has held that they were not made in good faith. By these findings we are bound and the only point for our decision is the question as to whether or not, in so far as a suit for civil defamation is concerned, statements in the petition complained of are, or are not, protected by the law of absolute privilege and, therefore, cannot be made the subject of a civil suit for damages, whatever may be said of them as offering a possible ground for a criminal prosecution under Section 499, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The case came in the first place before the learned Subordinate Judge and he held as a matter of law that the libellous statements complained of were protected by the doctrine of absolute privilege and he held as a fact that the statements were true in substance and in fact and further that they were not made maliciously and he, there fore gave judgment for the defendants. When the matter reached the District Judge on appeal he reversed the findings of fact of the Munsif, but so far as we are concerned, the only important part of his judgment is that he found that the statements complained of were not protected by the doctrine of absolute privilege, but I fear that he has not appreciated the fundamental principles of law which apart from the authorities should have solved the difficulty.

(3.) A long series of authorities has emphasised the distinction between criminal proceedings and civil proceedings for defamation in India. It has been pointed out again and again that in so far as criminal proceedings are concerned the law of defamation is not a matter of common law, but is a matter of statute and of Section 499, Indian Penal Code. On the, other hand a civil action for damages for defamation is not a matter of any legislation. It is inherited from the English. Common law and is applicable in India by virtue of the principle that the India Courts in default of special legislation are to apply the rules of equity and good conscience, which have been held certainly in this particular case to include the English Common law of defamation.