JAGANNATH MISRA Vs. RAM CHANDRA DEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Sri Jagannath Misra was convicted for an offence under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced by the trial Court to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000. But in appeal the learned Sessions Judge, while confirming the conviction, reduced the sentence of imprisonment to one month, but maintained the sentence of fine. Hence the revision to this Court. Mr. R. K. Das in presenting an able argument, vehemently protested against the illegality of the conviction and raised a number of points of law which will be dealt with shortly. It is necessary to state the facts which have been found concurrently by the Courts below and regarding which there can now be no possible scope for any dispute.

(2.) The complainant, Sri Ramchandra, the present holder of the Badakhemidi estate resigned his membership of the District Board of Ganjam in November 1942, whereupon the seat fell vacant and was to be filled up by election. The complainant set up one Sri Gouranga Chandra Deb Goswami, his Guru, and the Congress party set up another candidate Satyanarayan Patnaik. The accused belongs to the Congress party, and at that time was the president delegate of the board. In the course of the election campaign a meeting was organised on behalf of the complainant or his adherents in village Nuapada which appertains to his estate. On 12 July 1943, the complainant was scheduled to address a meeting of the villagers at about 3 P. M. For that purpose a pandal was arranged in front of the Mutt and some chairs and a table were placed there. The complainant reached Nuapada at 3 P. M. and was taken in procession to the place of the meeting. But he found that the accused and Satyanarayan Patnaik had already occupied the two chairs, although they were not invited to attend the meeting. When the complainant came near, the accused and his adherents shouted "Go back. Down with zamindari" and tried to create a disturbance. The complainant thereupon wanted to leave the place as he thought that his presence would further annoy the accused, who was bent upon creating a disturbance, but the raiyats requested the complainant not to go away The zamin-dar then stood on the table to address the villagers numbering about two thousand. The accused then stood on a chair and said that the zamindar had resigned from the District Board because of the construction of Naupada High School and a road from Bonkai to Chandipur. This imputation was denied by the zamindar. He stated that the reasons for his resignation were otherwise and were to be found in his letter of resignation. Upon this the accused shouted "you are a liar" and pro-duced the District Board file which he had in his hand--it is surprising to me how the file of the District Borad of Ganjam was allowed to be taken out from the office and was in the hands of the accused. There was some altercation as to the correct reading of the contents of the letter of resignation, and the complainant requested the accused to hand over the letter to him so that he may read it. But the accused handed over the file with the letter to Satyanarayan Patnaik, coupled with the remark that "Satyanarayan Patnaik was more gentlemanly than the zamindar" (apan tharu se adhika bhadra). The zamindar appealed to the crowd to judge the behaviour of the accused who therefore got more annoyed or angry and shouted in a loud voice abhadra, asabhya and atyachari pointing his hand to the complainant. Thereupon, the raiyats protested but the complainant pacified them and fearing that there may be a breach of the peace he left the meeting.

(3.) This version of the occurrence has been proved to the satisfaction of the Courts below, not only upon the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses, but. from some statements which have been made by the witnesses examined on behalf of the accused himself. It should be stated here that the accused admitted that he called the complainant abhadra but he denied that he used any of the other words. The complaint was lodged on 6 August 1943, but the delay has been satisfactorily accounted for as found by the Courts below. Upon the facts it is argued that the conviction under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, is not justified particularly upon the ground that the accused is protected by Exceptions 1, 3 and 9. The difficulty in the way of the petitioner is that ho such plea has ever been taken in the Courts below. It will be found that each of the exceptions now relied upon before this Court requires it to be proved as a fact that the imputation was true and for the public good (Exception 1) and was expressed in good faith regarding the public conduct of the complainant and respecting his character (Exception 3) and that the imputation was made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person who made it, or for the public good (Exception 9). Here, on the contrary, the accused does not admit that he made any imputation regarding the complainant beyond calling him abhadra. Therefore I can quite understand why these exceptions were not pleaded in the Courts below. The first contention must, therefore, be overruled.