MUHAMMAD GUL Vs. HAZI FAZLEY KARIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Mohammad Gul has been convicted by the third Presidency Magistrate, Northern Division, Calcutta, under Section 500, I.P.C, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, the fine to be paid to the complainant as compensation. The subject matter of the defamation was contained in a petition which the petitioner filed in the court of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, on 22 March, 1928. It was a petition against four persons namely the opposite party Hazi Fazle Karim, one Golam Nabi, one Shamsuddin and one Abdur Rashid. It ran in these words: The petitioner is a merchant in a leather goods and is on inimical terms with the defendants above named over a landed property in their native District in Punjab. In order to bring your petitioner's party to terms the accused persons caused the petitioner to be implicated in several false cases: (1) A cocaine ease in Burdwan in which the petitioner was discharged: (2) A pistol planting case in which also on enquiry it was found that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. After all these onslaughts the petitioner moved the learned D.C. Detective Department and he directed them to be warned in the first instance. This has enraged them further more. Accused 1 is the brother of the famous goonda Mukhia who was shot dead and accused 2 is his relation. They have started again threatening the complainant and his men with bodily injury this time. The petitioner has got to go to their side of Machuabazar as he has got business connexions there. They are thus in constant danger of bodily injury or threat by their men. In fact twice they were assaulted by some people whom they can identify and police has been informed. Under the circumstances it is prayed for that they may be warned not to molest the petitioner or his men in the first instance.

(2.) The whole of this petition was incorporated in the charge that was framed against the petitioner under Section 500, I.P.C. It contains a multitude of statements and it was not quite right to leave it to the accused to find out which exactly are the imputations that were intended or believed to cause harm to the reputation of the opposite party. No complaint, however, has been made before me on this ground and perhaps it was the case that all the statements were so intended or believed.

(3.) The rule has been issued upon three grounds: 1st, that the elements necessary to constitute the offence has not been made out; 2nd, that the petition of the opposite party upon which the case against the petitioner was started was not a complaint within the meaning of the law and Section 198, Criminal P.C., was a bar to the trial of the case; and 3rd, that the petitioner was protected by Exceps. 8 and 9 to Section 499, I.P.C. The first and the third grounds go together, while the second ground is really a combination of two grounds as will be presently seen.