PRATAP CHANDRA GUHA ROY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Pratap Chandra Guha Roy, was tried and convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Faridpur on three charges of defamation and was sentenced under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code to one year's simple imprisonment for each offence, the sentences to run concurrently. On appeal to the Sessions Judge of Faridpur his conviction on the third charge was set aside and the sentences were reduced to six months simple imprisonment on each of the two charges on which the conviction was upheld, these sentences also running concurrently. The petitioner has obtained an open Rule from this Court calling upon the District Magistrate and the complainant to show cause why the conviction of and the sentence passed on the petitioner should not be set aside or such other orders passed as to this Court may seem fit.

(2.) The two charges in respect of which the petitioner's conviction has been upheld are as follows: Firstly: That you on or about the 13 day of June 1923 at Berhamganj, P.S. Sibchar, defamed the complainant by making and publishing the following imputation in your speech at a public meeting concerning the police force employed at Char Maniar of which the complainant was a member and the principal officer in charge of the investigation to the effect that not to speak of the police only, but the British Government themselves and the superior officers Including from the District Magistrate down to the daroga and chowkidar's were all beasts and pigs In their conduct, intending to harm, and knowing and having reason to believe that it would harm, the reputation of the said complainant and the police force employed at Char Maniar, and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, and within my cognizance. Secondly: That you on or about the 17 day of June 1923 at Faridpur, P.S. Kotalli, defamed the complainant by making, and publishing in your speech at a public meeting the following imputation concerning the police force employed at Char Maniar of which the complainant is a member and the principal officer in charge of the Investigation to the effect that the "police force employed at Char Maniar had bitten off the nipple of the breast of women and had bitten the sheek of a, woman nine month's pregnant intending to harm and knowing and having reason to-- believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the complainant and the police employed at Char Maniar, and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 500, C.P.C. and within my cognizance.

(3.) The complainant is Rasiduddin Khan, a Sub-Inspector of Police. On the night of the 16th May 1925, a dacoity was committed in the house of one Adu Molla in village Char Maniar. In consequence of Information received a body of police under another Sub-Inspector, Badaruddln Ahmed, arrived there while the dacoity was going on. For some reason that has not been made clear the Sub-Inspector Badaruddiln and his party were attacked and kept, confined by the villagers of Char Maniar. Rasiduddln Khan was the Sub-Inspector in charge of Sadarpur police station In whose jurisdiction Char Maniar is situated. As such he investigated both cases, the case of dacoity and the case of assault on the police mentioned above. The petitioner who is a member of the District Congress Committee made several speeches, and the charges set out above relate to statements he is alleged to have made in two of those speeches.