SAUKHI GOPE Vs. UCHIT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four petitioners were accused in a criminal case. The opposite party was a prosecution witness. During cross-examination by the petitioners lawyer the opposite party made these statements; "It is not a fact that Lachhuman and all the prosecution witnesses of this case are members of a gang of thieves stealing Mokaman Ghat railway goods" and "It is not a fact that this case has been concocted against the accused as these accused were instrumental in reporting to the Superintendent of Police about the formation of a gang of thieves by us."

(2.) After this, but while the criminal case was still pending, the opposite party filed a petition of complaint in the Court of the Sub-divisional Officer, Barh, for prosecuting the petitioners for defamation under Section 500, Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint, holding that it could not be argued that these statements had been made simply to defame, and they were privileged under exception 9 of Section 499, Indian Penal Code. A petition was then made in the Court of Sessions, and the Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, allowed the application and directed further inquiry, into the case. The present application is directed against this order for further inquiry.

(3.) The question whether statements made by parties to judicial proceedings or their advocates are absolutely privileged as in English law or enjoy only a qualified privilege if made in good faith under Section, 499, Indian Penal Code, is one about which there has been considerable difference of opinion. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court in In re P. Venkata Reddy (13) 36 Mad. 216 held that the exceptions in Section 499 were not exhaustive, and did not exclude the application of the English common law rule for absolute privilege to judicial proceedings in this country.