GENDA RAM Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Genda Ramand Ganga Dutt have been convicted under Section 500, I.P.C., for defaming the complainant firm National Emporium, Roorki, by a Magistrate, 1st Class, Saharanpur, and fined Rs. 250 and Rs. 100, respectively. The alleged defamation is contained in two letters, one dated 10 December 1934, and the other dated 23 December of the same year, and in an advertisement mainly published in Lahore in leaflets distributed broadcast. The learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and the sentences but ruled that the letter of 23rd December 1934, did not contain any such imputation as could amount to defamation. Genda Ram and Ganga Dutt have applied to this Court in revision, challenging the view taken by the Courts below of the character of the alleged imputations.

(2.) It is no longer in dispute that both the applicants are criminally responsible for the imputations, if any, contained in the letter dated 10 December and the advertisement, if such imputations amount to defamation. The important question which has been argued at length before me and which I aim called upon to decide is whether the contents of the letter and the advertisement, properly construed, amount to such imputation as is contemplated by Section 499, I.P.C. To appreciate the language used in the letter and the advertisement in question, a few surrounding circumstances must be mentioned. The applicant Ganga Dutt give out that he and Raja Ram are the proprietors of a firm styled "E.G. Union Mart" of which the applicant Ganga Dutt is the manager. R" stands for Raja Ram and G" for Ganga Dutt. The complainant's is a well-known firm styled as the "National Emporium" of Roorki. Ganga Dutt, Raja Ram and Genda Ram are all residents of Roorki. The National Emporium is owned by Lachman Prakash, at whose instance the prosecution of the applicants was launched. This firm is of some standing and reputation and has extensive business of supplying survey, drawing and mathematical instruments. Among their important customers the Roorki College-is one. That Raja Ram and Ganga Dutt worked for the National Emporium for a considerable lengh of time in the manufacture of instruments supplied by the latter was not disputed. It was however alleged by the complainant that they were; merely servants of the National Emporium, and in that capacity, made certain parts of the instruments supplied by it and that there was then no firm of the name of E.G. Union Mart, which was started recently in 1934. The applicants case, on the other hand, was that Raja Ram and Ganga Dutt, the partners of the firm E.G. Union Mart, used to manufacture and supply instruments to the National Emporium, who put their own . labels on them and sold the same to their customers. The learned Sessions Judge has definitely found that Raja Ram and Ganga Dutt were piecework contractors having their own workshop, machines and-staff for the manufacture of finished articles sold by the National Emporium- There can be no doubt that the complainant's allegation that Raja Ram and Ganga Dutt were their servants is not correct.

(3.) Another point in controversy in the trial Court was whether the applicants- assumed the firm name of E.G. Union Mart for the first time in 1934, as alleged by the complainant, or the firm has-been in existence since 1919 and carried on under that name and style ever since. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded no definite finding. on this point, but, according to the Magistrate, Raja Ram and Ganga Dutt -were discharged by the National Emporium sometime in 1934, and it was sometime after their connection with the National Emporium was severed that they assumed the firm name of E.G. Union Mart. The learned Magistrate, however, found that for a number of years before 1934 the applicants worked as piecework contractors for the National Emporium not as partners of a firm but as two individual contractors. It has also been found that they had given an undertaking to the National Emporium that they would not sell any instruments manufactured by them to anyone except the firm National Emporium. It is clearly borne out by the evidence that the applicants manufactured survey, drawing and mathematical instruments, which they were under an obligation to sell to the National Emporium, who were to pay for each article supplied, and then the instruments thus supplied by the applicants were labelled as articles manufactured by the National Emporium. The applicants did not take any exception to the advertisement of these instruments in that manner. Misunderstandings arose between the parties when Raja Ram and Ganga Dutt, after their connexion with the National Emporium was severed, started a firm of their own name and offered to sell survey, drawing and mathematical instruments of the same kind as those supplied by the National Emporium and at much less prices. It is perfectly clear that the E.G. Union Mart tried to undersell and gain an advantage in the market for the instruments manufactured by them. The National Emporium naturally resented the attempt of the E.G. Union Mart to become a rival firm. There is some reason to believe that they, in their turn, attempted to checkmate the efforts of the E.G. Union Mart by informing the customers of the comparatively recent and insignificant origin of the firm E.G. Union Mart.