EMPEROR Vs. ESUFALLI ABDUL HUSSEIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against the conviction of the petitioner on a charge of defamation.

(2.) The complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner for having called him a rogue before the police on the 5th of July 1917. The defamatory matter referred to in the charge framed against the accused is that "the complainant was a rogue and had swindled a relative out of Rs. 1,000." For the purposes of this case the charge should have been confined to the allegation in the complaint, and in the evidence of the complainant and his son. Taking the charge as restricted in that manner, we have to consider whether the conviction of the accused is proper.

(3.) It appears that the accused had made an application to the police against one Allibhai to prevent a breach of the peace, and Allibhai had made a similar application to the police against the accused and some others. It was in connection with these applications that the parties were before the police on the 5th of July. Allibhai at that time mentioned the complainant as one of his witnesses and with reference to that the accused is alleged to have stated to the police that the proposed witness was a rogue.