BHOLA NATH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Col. Bholanath, has been convicted of the offence of defamation under Section 500, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500. The prosecution was started on two complaints filed by his own daughter-in- law, Mrs. Bishesharnath, in the following circumstances. The complainant was married to one Mr. Thomson, a well-known and wealthy manufacturer of tiles etc. carrying on business at Allahabad and Cawnpore. She came to be introduced to the family of the appellant, while he was stationed at Allahabad, and there, at Allahabad, she met the son of the appellant, Lt. Bishesharnath. According to the complaint filed on 26 June 1927 (the first complaint) the complainant and Bisheshernath grew to be intimate friends. Mr. Thomson removed to Cawnpore permanently and then the complainant and Bishesharnath often met secretly. On the death of Mr. Thomson the parties met openly, and according to the complainant herself the two began to live as husband and wife from December 1924. Bisheshar Nath was posted to Quetta, and, at his request, the complainant went to live with him there, with her illegitimate baby, of whom Bishesharnath was the father. The baby died in Quetta, and thereafter Bishesharnath was sent to Moradabad for his training, having been transferred to the Political Department. The complainant lived with Bishesharnath there and passed for a friend of Bishesharnath's mother. The Roman Catholic priest at Moradabad to whom the complainant used to pay visits deprecated her living with Bishesharnath without her being married to him. Bishesharnath changed his religion, and adopted the Roman Catholic Christian faith. Then, the two were married, secretly, at Moradabad in August 1926. The fact of the marriage was kept secret, the reason being, according to the complainant this. It was feared that the disclosure of the fact of the marriage would affect adversely the employment of Bishesharnath in the Political Department. It is, however, a fact that according to either a will or a deed executed by the late Mr. Thomson, his widow could enjoy the income of the estate, amounting to Rs. 4000 to 6000 a month, for her life, subject to loss of the income, on remarriage. The marriage was kept secret, and the income from the estate of Mr. Thomson was enjoyed by the complainant. In December 1926 Mr. Stewart, I.C.S., the head of the Training Institution, having come to know that Bishesharnath was living with a European lady, who was reputed not to be his wife, pressed Bishesharnath to disclose the nature of relationship that existed between the two. In spite of further attempts at concealment, the fact of the marriage was disclosed in December 1926. On 14 March 1926, a telegram was received from the Government, by the Training College authorities, directing the reversion of Bishesharnath to the regular Military Department. This seems to have upset him considerably. Frantic efforts were made by him to obtain intercession of friends and high officers.

(2.) The appellant and his son were not on good terms, yet Bishesharnath and his wife went to Delhi, where Bishesharnath's father was, in order to see him This was on or about 19 March 1927. There, at Delhi, Bishesharnath obtained an interview with the Viceroy, but nothing came out of it. The couple then returned to Moradabad. On 27 March 1927, Col. Bholanath arrived at Moradabad, and stopped at the dak bungalow. The previous day he had wired to Mr. Abu Mohammad, an officer of the Provincial Service who was then in charge of the Training Institution, Mr. Stewart having, in the meantime, left Moradabad, on leave. Mr. Abu Mohammad brought Col. Bholanath to his own house, and sent for Bishesnarnath. The latter and his wife both came. They had a talk with Mr. Abu Mohammad, and they left. Mr. Abu Mohammad then took the appellant to the house of Mr. Collett, the District Magistrate. Col. Bholanath had some talk with him, and then on his way back to the house of Mr. Abu Mohammad Col. Bholanath saw the Superintendent of Police Mr. Field and then left for Delhi the next day.

(3.) It is said for the prosecution that during his interview with Mr. Abu Mohammad and Mr. Collett the appellant defamed the complainant by stating that she was of unsound mind and likely to murder her husband, that she was of loose character, man-mad and had a very bad reputation for being immoral at Cawnpore and at Allahabad.