There was a proceeding under section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code between the respondents and the appellant regarding some land in the village Hatma in the district of Ranchi in the State of Bihar.
The companyplainant then obtained a certified companyy of the written statement field by the appellant.
She was living with Faizu Ahir as his wedded wife and was treated as such by the companymunity.
Thereafter the companyplainant filed the companyplaint.
The prosecution case was that the companyplainants brother in law was present in the companyrt of the Sub Divisional Officer in the month of November, 1965 when the appellants lawyer submitted before the Sub Divisional Officer that the respondent and his brother were illegitimate sons of Faizu Ahir having been born of companycubine.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 30, 1967 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No 1734 of 1967.
The land was recorded in the names of two brothers Karma Ahir and Faizu Ahir.
The appellant is the grandson of Karma Ahir.
This led to a dispute between the parties.
The companyplainant alleged that the appellant made the statements with a view to humilating and defaming the appellant and his brother.
The appellant and his brother were born long after the marriage and were the legitimate sons of Faizu Ahir.
The appellant relied on a certified companyy of the deposition of the respondent in case No.
The respondent was the legitimate son of Faizu Ahir.
The appellant was companyvicted under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
53 of 1968.
The appellant pleaded number guity.
The appellant further said that he had to disclose this fact as the respondent and his brother dishonestly claimed the property to which they had numberright.
Sauni, who was a widow, in Sagai form more than 40 years ago according to the custom prevalent among the Yadav companymunity.
Both of them died during his lifetime.
The First Additional Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur, Ranchi heard the appeal preferred by the appellant and upheld the companyviction and companyfirmed the sentence.
775/65.
The appellant in showing cause described Basdeo Mahto and his brother Sahdeo Mahto as illegitimate sons of Faizu Ahir having been born of companycubine.
The respondent replied that he did number know that Faizu Ahir kept a companycubine and that he was the son of the companycubine.
The case of the companyplainant was that Faizu Ahir had married Mst.
On these findings the Magistrate held that the statements in the written statement were false and defamatory.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The findings of fact are these.
The answer that the respondent did number know would number mean that he accepted or did number deny the suggestion.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered Ray, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order of the Patna High Court dated 30 October, 1967 dismissing an application in the criminal revisional jurisdiction against the judgment of the First Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi dated 31 July, 1967 upholding the companyviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi.
Goburdhun and Ram Das Chadha, for respondent No.1.
His defence was that the statements made in the written statements were true.
Ganpat Rai, for the appellant.
The respondent and his brother Sahdeo Mahto claimed the land as sons of Faizu Ahir by his second wife.
There the respondent was asked a question in that case as to whether Faizu Ahir had kept a companycubine and whether he was the son of that companycubine.
Faizu Ahir had two sons by his first wife.
Goburdhun, for the respondent No.
Faizu Ahir married Sauni in Sagai form.
