AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—Dr. N. Raman is the appellant herein. He filed a private complaint against one Dr. Indira Kalyanasundaram, the
respondent herein, for the offence under S. 500 I.P.C. The learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai acquitted the respondent.
Hence, this appeal.
The appellant was working as a senior Lecturer in Botany Department, University of Madras, Guindy campus. The respondent was a Reader in
the same department. With reference to the alleged imputation made by the respondent herein on three occasions, which lowered his reputation in
the estimation of the others, the above private complaint was preferred by the appellant.
On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-24 were marked. After trial, the lower Court concluded that
the offence was not proved, and thereby acquitted the respondent herein.
Mr. R. Subramanian, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, while challenging the impugned judgment, would contend that the trial Court
had committed an illegality by acquitting the respondent, despite acceptable materials being available in the case on hand.
Mr. Ravikumar, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, would counter the above submission.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment of the trial Court.
On the side of the prosecution, Exs. P-8 to Ex. P-19 have been marked in order to establish that the appellant has acquired reputation as an
outstanding Lecturer from various quarters. The other documents have been filed by the prosecution in order to prove the imputation alleged to
have been made by the respondent on three occasions. (1) The respondent sent a letter, Ex. P-1, to the Registrar, University of Madras
complaining about the appellant indicating that the appellant was a scientific fraud. (2) The respondent, while examined as P.W. 7 in C.C. No.
185/90, stated before the Court about the appellant, who was accused in that case, which defamed him. (3) The Respondent sent a letter Ex. P-7
to a student one Mubarak Ali instigating the students to arrange for an agitation as against the appellant and consequently, the said Mubarak Ali
prepared a Memorandum Ex. P-24 making allegations against the appellant and submitted the same to the Head of the Department and the same
was published in Ex. P-23, Nakkiran journal.
The learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, while analysing the evidence of the witnesses and the documents in support of the above
appreciation, concluded that there was no publication and there was no material that his reputation was lowered in the estimation of the public, and
that the letter, written by the respondent to the Head of the Department complaining about the attitude of the appellant, was only sent in good faith
which, falls under the Eighth Exception of S. 499 I.P.C. and as such, the said act cannot be termed as defamation.
Regarding the first imputation, it is seen from the records that Ex. P-1 letter was sent to the Registrar of the University and that the said letter
was, in turn, sent to the Department Director along with covering letter Ex. P2 asking him to call for remarks.
As pointed out by the trial Court, the contents of the letter Ex. P-1 sent by the respondent to the Registrar of the Madras University do not
reveal any direct accusation against the appellant. Even assuming it to be so, this letter was sent to the lawful authority namely, the Registrar of the
University, with respect to the subject matter of the accusation. Therefore, eighth exception of S. 499 I.P.C. protects the respondent from being
prosecuted.
Moreover, the letter contained some allegations against a particular person addressed to the authorised person, who forwarded it to a third
person calling for remarks from the concerned person, cannot be said to be a publication as contemplated under S. 499 I.P.C. This is clear from
the judgment of this Court rendered in M. Ramachandran v. P.S. Mehra (1966 L.W. (Crl) 78) .
In this case, the Registrar of the University forwarded the letter to Mahadevan, the Director of the Department. P.W. 3 would state that he
was instructed by the P.A. of the Director to hand over the same to the person concerned and that since it was open, he read the letter. It is to be
noted that admittedly, the letter which was sent by the respondent to the Registrar of the University, was in the envelope. Therefore, the main
ingredient, namely, the publication was not proved.
Regarding the second contention, it is stated that the respondent, while she was examined as P.W. 7 in some other criminal case before the IX
Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras, stated something against the appellant, as referred to in the trial Court judgment. S. 132 of the Evidence Act
clearly protects a witness from being an accused in a defamation case on the basis of the answers given by the said witness in a criminal
proceeding. A witness is legally bound to answer any question which is relevant to the matter in issue, even if the answer to such a question is likely
to criminate the complainant directly or indirectly.
The proviso to S. 132 of the Evidence Act expressly provides that such answer which a witness is compelled to give, shall not subject him to
any arrest or prosecution nor the same can be proved against the witness in any criminal proceeding. This is a settled law as held in Laxmipat
Choraria and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Jagjit Singh, and M.P. Gangadharan v. State of Kerala (1989 (2)
Cri.L.C. 686) .
In the instant case, the prosecution under S. 500 I.P.C is in relation to the answers given by the respondent herein as a witness in other criminal
case in the cross examination. Therefore, the prosecution in this case cannot be valid in law.
As regards the third imputation, it is stated that because of the letter Ex. P-7 sent by the respondent from Simla to Mubarak Ali, Ex. P-24
Memorandum was prepared by him and a procession was arranged by the said Mubarak Ali to give the said memorandum to the Head of the
Department. This also cannot be sustained for two reasons.
Firstly, the letter was signed by the respondent on 18.9.89 addressed to Mubarak Ali. According to prosecution, this letter was sent from
Simla by the respondent to Mubarak Ali but me Memorandum was presented by the students including Mubarak Ali on 19.9.89. Therefore, it is
understandable as to how the memorandum could have been prepared and the procession conducted on 19.9.89 only on the basis of the letter by
the respondent dated 18.9.89. There is no material to show that this letter dated 18.9.89 was received by Mubarak Ali and then the memorandum
was prepared.
Secondly, in the letter Ex. P-7, there are no wordings to the effect that Mubarak Ali was asked to present the memorandum and conduct
agitation so as to defame the appellant. Therefore, mere is no positive evidence to show that the respondent had intended to defame the appellant
and there was publication of the alleged imputation.
On going through the records, I would rather feel that this private complaint was filed by the appellant for the offence under S. 500 I.P.C. on
the basis of the impression that the earlier police case was given against him by one Julie only at the instance of the respondent herein.
In the light of the above fact situation, I cannot but say that this sort of fight between the Lecturer and the Reader working in the same
department would only indicate that the persons who are expected to concentrate fully on the teaching profession, which is still to be considered as
noble, have begun to spend their time in the court halls taking it as a prestige issue, which would not be in my view, a healthy trend in the interests
of the educational institution.
With these observations the appeal which has no merit is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed.