EMPEROR Vs. JHABBAR MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Government appeal from the decision of Mr. Joti Sarup, the Additional Sessions Judge of Saharanpur, who, on the 3 May 1927, acquitted Jhabbar Mal Sharma, Babu Ram Misra and Banarsi Dutt Sharma of offences under Section 500, I.P.C. Jhabbar Mal Sharma was at a material date, 12 February 1926, the editor of a paper called the Hindu Sansar. Babu Ram Misra, on another material date, 24 May 1926, was the editor, and Banarsi Dutt Sharma was throughout the publisher. The learned Magistrate, Mr. Shafi, convicted all the three accused, sentencing the two first named to 12 months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 with the addition of a period of three months simple imprisonment if the fine should not be paid and the third accused, Banarsi Dutt Sharma, to three months simple imprisonment on each count, ordering, however, that those terms of imprisonment should run concurrently. The Local Government, taking the view that the decision of Mr. Joti Sarup was open to doubt, and that in the public interest it was desirable that this matter should be examined by the High Court, instituted the appeal.

(2.) The complainant's name was Chakra Dhar. He had been for many years in the police of this Province and had risen to the post of Superintendent. In June 1925 the post of Home Member in the State of Tehri was vacant and the complainant was invited by the Maharajah to become Home Member and accepted that position of honour and responsibility. The evidence is that this appointment caused annoyance to certain persons who have been named, on the ground that there was something like an hereditary right in their family to the reversion of this post, and it has throughout been part of the complainant's case that his position was made difficult in the State by reason of the ill-feeling generally that was felt at the introduction of an outsider.

(3.) On 12 February 1926, the aforesaid paper, which is published in Delhi, had an article pointedly addressed to the complainant and that article charged him quite definitely with habitual drunkenness. It made a second charge of a most precise character, which was that when he was drunk at Hardwar he uttered to the Income-tax Commissioner extremely indecent words before the wife and daughter of the Income- tax Commissioner.