EMPEROR Vs. ANANDRAO BALKRISHNA RANGNEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rao Saheb Anant Bhasker Nimkar, the Mamlatdar of Vengurla, filed a complaint against Anandrao Balkrishna Rangnekar, in the Court of the First Class Magistrate of Malwan, Mr. Bijurkar, charging the said Rangnekar with having defamed him and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced him to three months simple imprisonment and a fine Rs. 200, and directed that out of the fine, Rs. 75 should be paid as compensation to the complainant under Section 545 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal, the Sessions Judge remitted the sentence of imprisonment, but confirmed the conviction and sentence of fine. Against this, the accused has applied to us for revision, and the record and proceedings having been sent for, the case has been fully argued before us.

(2.) The questions that arise for consideration are, whether the accused is guilty of the offence of defamation, and whether, if what he wrote amounts to defamation, the same is covered by any of the Exceptions to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, and whether he is properly convicted. In the course of the arguments before us, two very important questions have been argued, namely, whether the proceedings in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed were judicial proceedings, and whether the accused is not entitled to absolute privilege as a party to such judicial proceedings independently of any question of good faith governing his action.

(3.) I propose in the first instance to deal with the main question in the case, viz., whether the conviction is proper and ought to be upheld. In doing so, I must first consider whether the petition presented by the accused to the Assistant Collector of Ratnagiri against the order of the complainant contains statements which are defamatory, and if so, whether they are or are not covered by any of the Exceptions to Section 499. The facts which led to the filing of this complaint are shortly these. As far back as 1849 a portion of certain lands in the village of Kochre in the Ratnagiri District was mortgaged to the grandfather of the accused by one Ramchandra Jivaji Rege, and under the terms of the mortgage deed, the mortgagors paid the assessment on the mortgaged portion of the land, although the accused was in possession thereof. The mortgagors had been doing so for about fifty years, but in 1902, the accused alleges, there was a dispute as to who should pay the assessment and the then revenue authorities decided that the mortgagors should continue to pay the same. That order does not appear to be forthcoming but the fact remains that the mortgagors continued to pay the assessment till March 1913. About this time some new arrangement seems to have come into operation for the collection of revenue in the Ratnagiri District and what are spoken of as Kabja Khatas were opened, whereby the parties in possession of lands were primarily made liable to pay the assessment to Government. The last instalment for the year 1912/13 fell due in May 1913 and was not paid. The mortgagors movable property was attached in the first instance. After holding an investigation, the warrant of attachment against the mortgagors was cancelled by the complainant, and a warrant was issued against the accused to recover from him the overdue instalment of Rs. 6-1-4. This was on the 6th of July 1913. In consequence of the warrant the accused paid this amount. He, however, felt aggrieved by this order made by the complainant Rao Saheb Nimkar, and as he was entitled to do under the provisions of the Land Revenue Code, appealed to the Assistant Collector of Ratnagiri against the order praying that it may be reversed. The appeal he presented was in the shape of a petition which he sent to the Assistant Collector by post, and the Mamlatdar complains that it is in this petition that the accused has made statements defamatory of him and thereby committed an offence for which he was prosecuted and convicted. The petition is in Marathi. It has been translated and placed before us, and I have very carefully perused the contents of that petition. Put at its highest in favour of the complainant and at its worst against the accused, the defamatory statements amount to this that the Mamlatdar acted towards the appellant unjustly and spitefully, that in passing the order appealed against he was actuated by personal ill-will and malice against the appellant, and that the Mamlatdar had in acting as he had done exercised his authority with a view to cause harassment and loss to the appellant. The accused when questioned before the Magistrate admitted having sent the petition and admitted that he did make the allegations complained of by the Mamlatdar. He pleaded that he was justified in making those allegations, because he believed them to be true and when asked by the Magistrate whether he did not think that in making those allegations his action came under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, he answered that he had not exceeded the privilege given by law to aggrieved persons to make representions to superior officers. There is thus no question of the responsibility of the accused for the petition he presented, and there is no doubt that in that petition he has charged the Mamlatdar that in passing the order he did against the accused, he was actuated by malice and personal ill-will against him. In justification for his attributing personal ill-will to the Mamlatdar, the accused relies on a previous incident between himself and the Mamlatdar, which is fully brought out in the cross- examination of the complainant before the Magistrate, and it is most important for the purposes of this case that the facts relating to that incident should be most carefully scrutinized and taken into consideration. It appears that on the 18th of February 1913 two instalments of revenue which became due in December 1912 and February 1913 amounting in all to Rs. 32 were in arrears. The Mamlatdar went to the accused s village of Kochre, sent for him and told him to pay up the arrears of these instalments on that very day. The accused promised to pay the only due instalments on the next day. He did take the moneys to the Mamlatdar on the next day, the 19th of February, but did so late in the evening. The Mamlatdar seems to have directed an hour and a half before the II accused went to him with the money that a warrant should issue for the distraint of the accused s moveable property not only for the two instalments that were in arrears but also for the remaining two instalments for that year which had not become due and superadded a fine of Rs. 5 in the said warrant. Although the accused paid the two instalments that were due, the Mamlatdar insisted on the warrant being executed against him for instalments that were not due and for the fine that was included in that warrant. The accused s moveable property was distrained and sold in execution and the Mamlatdar confirmed the sale on the 10th of March 1913, the warrant having been executed on the 20th of February 1913. The property attached was valued by the Punch at Rs. 45 and it was sold for Rs. 22. The Mamlatdar complainant has stated to the Magistrate that he thought he had no power to recall the warrant he had issued when the accused paid up the arrears of instalments, but went further and said that even if he had the power he "had no mind to revise the order." In justification for this action, the Mamlatdar says that he acted as he did towards the accused " with intent to make a deterrent example in a case." He admits that there were other people in the village who were equally in default as the accused, but pleads that he selected the accused because his name was first in a list of about ten or twelve persons that was handed over to him and who were alleged to be prominent defaulters. This list was called for by the Sessions Judge, but has not been forthcoming. This conduct of the complainant though strictly legal was in the opinion of the Magistrate, "exceptionally stringent and invidious," and in the opinion of the Sessions Judge was of questionable propriety The details of the action of the Mamlatdar are clearly brought out in his cross-examination before the Magistrate by the accused s pleader, it is unnecessary to discuss them here with any further elaboration. The accused proved this incident of February preceding the order of the Magistrate of July against which he appealed, as justification for his belief that the Mamlatdar was actuated by personal ill-will against him in acting as he did.