KHIMA NAND Vs. EMPEROR THROUGH PREM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for the revision of an order by the District Magistrate of Almora directing further inquiry into a case in which the accused were discharged. The allegation against the accused was that they had been guilty of defamation in that they had written on a postcard to the complainant that a notice of enhancement of rent, which he had issued to them was due to the fact that they had refused to give false evidence for him. The Magistrate discharged the accused because he held that there was no offence of defamation where the defamatory statement was made in a communication addressed to the person defamed. The learned District Magistrate came to the conclusion that this rule did not apply to the present case because the defamatory statement was written upon a post-card. It is argued in revision that the learned District Magistrate was wrong because it has been held in the case of Queen Empress V/s. Taki Husain 7 A. 205, that in no case can a defamatory statement contained in a communication addressed to the person defamed justify a conviction. It seems to me that no general rule of this kind was laid down in the case. The only rule is that there can be no offence of defamation unless the defamatory statement is published or communicated to a third party, that is, to a party other than the person defamed. The question whether there is such publication or not is one of fact and the question may be decided either by direct evidence or on the circumstances of the case. In my opinion there is no reason to interfere at this stage. I reject the application. The temporary stay order is discharged.