- (1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant, J. This Revision, preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order dated 04. 10. 1988, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1985, whereby conviction under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, passed against the accused (present revisionist) by learned Munsif and Ju dicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Crimi nal Case No. x302 of 1984, is upheld.
(2.) PROSECUTION story in brief is that the complainant-Pyare Mohan Labru (P. W. I) is a manufacture of ink. Accused / revisionist- Mangana Nand is a Postman. In July, 1982, a letter appears to have been sent by one Shri S. K. Goyal, Advocate, ad dressed to complainant- Pyare Mohan Labru, which was to be handed over by the accused/ revi sionist to him for delivery of the same. But the complainant Pyare Mohan did not receive the registered letter on which the Postman (ac cused), recorded the following report in the envelope of the registered let ter : The complainant appears to have made a complaint, alleging that he has been defamed and insulted by the accused by making the aforesaid endorsement. On said complaint be fore the Magistrate, the trial court af ter examining complainant and wit nesses under Section 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, summoned the accused for his trial in connection with the alleged offence, punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Af ter recording the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant and putting the same to the accused un der Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the trial court recorded the evidence, ad duced in defence, on behalf of the accused. The trial court found that the accused Mangana Nand is guilty of the offence punishable under Sec tion 500 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to two months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by said or der dated 09. 04. 1985, the accused preferred an appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun, which was regis tered as Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1985. The said appeal appears to have been transferred to court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, who after hearing the parties, upheld the conviction but modified the sentence from two months simple imprisonment to fine of Rs. 1500/ -. In default of payment of said fine, the appellate court directed the appellant (present revisionist) to undergo two months simple imprisonment. This re vision has been preferred against said orders. The offence of defamation is defined in Section 499 of Indian Pe nal Code, 1860, which provides that 'whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representations, makes or pub lishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or know ing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the repu tation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person, There are four explanations and ten exceptions to this provision in Section 499. In short, after reading whole of the Section, it can be said that defamation means a publication of a- false state ment about a man to discredit him without any legal Justification or ex cuse there for. In the present case, the above mentioned endorsement made by the postman (accused) is an admitted fact but in defence he has made at tempts to explain by adducing evi dence that on 27. 07. 1982, when he went to deliver the letter to the com plainant, he was not found in his house again the accused (Postman) went to deliver the letter on 28. 07. 1982,and on that date com plainant, Pyare Mohan misbehaved with him and hurled abuses at him. Further again on 29. 07. 1982, the complainant misbehaved and hurled abuses at the Postman (accused ). Statement of D. W. 1 prakashwati and D. W. 2 were got recorded on this point.
(3.) 9th exception to Section 499, reads as under : "ninth Exception-Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's inter ests-It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputa tion be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public goods. IIIustrations (a) A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business- ' Sell nothing to Z unless he pays-you ready money, for I have no opinion of his hon esty; A is with in the exception, if he has made this imputation on Z in good faith for the pro tection of his own interests. (b) A, a Magistrate, in making a report of his own superior of ficer, casts an imputation on the character of Z. Here, if the imputation is made in good faith, and for the public good, A is within the exception. The report of the Postman about the conduct of the complainant on the basis of his experience on vesting on him to deliver the letter, in the opinion of this Court, are covered in the ninth Exception to Section 499, quoted above. The accused appears to have made the observation in good faith for the protection of his own interest. He was required to make a report as to why the letter was not delivered to the addressee else he would have invited action for not discharging his duty. As such in the opinion of this Court the act of revisionist is covered under ninth ex ception of Section 499 of Indian Pe nal Code, 1860.;