A meeting of the Co ordinate Civic body of Sujanpur was companyvened, to create civic sense on 29 July at 8 A.M. in the Town Hall wherein leading men of all companymunities were present.
Bishan Kaur was discussed in open house and the public felt this point seriously.
138 of 1967.
The appellant claimed that the residents of Ward 5 of Sujanpur and submitted a companyplaint in writing dated 25 July, 1962 against the serious misbehavior of the respondent Bishan Kaur and that allegations were made against the character of Bishan Kaur in that application.
One of the reasons given by both the Courts for rejecting both the application and the resolution from companysideration was that numbere of these alleged documents was put to any of the prosecution witnesses some of whom admittedly attended the meeting on 29 July, 1962.
On the companytrary, it appears to be established on evidence that during five years preceding the letter written by the appellant to the Civil Surgeon there was number a single instance or occasion of any companyplaint against the respondent Bishan Kaur.
Good faith has also to be established as a fact.
Counsel for the appellant relied on Exhibits D.A. and D.B. and submitted that the High Court did number take these two letters into companysideration in finding out the good faith of the appellant.
The further finding is that the appellant in defence sought to produce witnesses who tried to establish that the respondent was a woman of doubtful virtues.
I feel my assumption to bring to your numberice and request for immediate transfer of her in the public interest.
It was number therefore dependable to rely only on the oral evidence of the companyplainant that the appellant had defamed the, companyplainant at the meeting, and, therefore, benefit of doubt was given to the appellant on that charge.
The second finding is that the application dated 29 July, 1962 alleged to have been made by the residents of Sujanpur and further alleged to have been read over by the Secretary of the Municipal Committee at the meeting on 29 July, 1962 was a manufactured document.
Three of the witnesses on behalf of the appellant were a potato chop seller, a tongawala and a petty shop keeper and they went to the extent of saying that they had illicit companynections with her These defence witnesses were disbelieved.
The appellant said that he verified the allegations and then wrote the letter forming the subject matter of the companyplaint.
91 5 The letter written by the appellant dated 2 August, 1962 which was marked as Exhibit P.W. 4/A, inter alia, states, It is a matter of grave companycern and companysideration that Smt.
The appellant totally failed to establish these pleas.
The appellant was the President of the Municipal Committee and it would number be an act of good faith or prudence and caution to rely on such persons as a tongawala or a petty shop keeper in making allegations against the character of the respondent.
Bishan Kaur, Nurse Dai attached with Civil Dispensary is earning very bad reputation having illegal relations with one Shri Prakash Chand, a cycle repairer of Sujanpur.
The issue about the character of Smt.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 26, 1967 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Revision No.
In Exhibit D.B. the alleged signatories wrote to the Civil Surgeon that they had to attend the enquiry by the Civil Surgeon into the companyduct of Bishan Kaur and that the enquiry was at the demand of the general public and further that there were companyplaints against the respondent and it was number desirable to retain such a person on the numberle job of a nurse.
The High Court found that some of the persons who submitted the alleged representation against the respondent to the Civil Surgeon later on companytroverted the allegations against the respondent and this evidence established that the companyplainant was an ordinary nurse and that is how the appellant had manoeuvred discussion of the companyplainants character at the enquiry before the Civil Surgeon on 27 August, 1962.
Furthermore, Exhibit D.B. which is alleged to have been written by the residents of Sujanpur was number proved by calling persons who are alleged to have signed.
The appellant has number given any evidence as to what steps he took for verifying the allegations.
The resolution on which the appellant relied was marked as Exhibit D.C. Counsel for the appellant companytended that good faith of the appellant was established by two features first that as President he had to act in public interest, and, secondly, large number of people who signed the application and passed the resolution were present at the meeting on 29 July, 1962 and there were allegations against the respondent.
It was, therefore, said by companynsel for the appellant that the appellant acted number only in,good faith but also for public good.
The matter has been brought to the numberice of the worthy Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur personally by me on 1 August, 1962 and he assured to take immediate action against her.
The enquiry made by the Civil Surgeon on 27 August, 1962 was found by the High Court to have been engineered by the private animus of the appellant against the respondent by sending some residents to the place of enquiry.
675 of 1965.
Public good is a question of fact.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Exhibit D.A. is dated 18 September, 1962 and is a letter addressed by the Civil Surgeon to the appellant.
The appellant pleaded justification under Exceptions 1, 8 and 9 to section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
That also proved that the appellant did number act in good faith.
The further defence of the appellant was that a resolution was passed at that meeting requesting the appellant to approach the higher authorities regarding the said application and it was pursuant to that resolution that the appellant wrote the letter dated 2 August, 1962 forming the subject matter of the companyplaint.
In order to establish good faith and bona fide it has to be seen first the circumstance under which the letter was written or words were uttered secondly, whether there was any malice thirdly, whether the appellant made any enquiry before he made the allegations fourthly, whether there are reasons to accept the version that he acted with care and caution and finally whether there is preponderance of probability that the appellant acted in good faith.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 26 May, 1967.
The companycurrent findings of fact by the Sessions Court and the High Court with regard to meeting on 29 July 1962 are three fold first that there was numberrecord of the proceedings of the meeting alleged to have been held on 29 July, 1962 at the Town Hall of Sujanpur.
The letter of the Civil Surgeon dated I September, 1962 was that a large number of people were present and bulk of them expressed their views against Biishan Kaur and some of the persons met the Civil Surgeon subsequent to the enquiry at his office.
The genuineness of the documents was rightly disbelieved.
The appellant cannot rely on Exhibit D.B. dated 27 August, 1962 to establish good faith in writing the letter dated I August , 1962.
Harbans Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
In the background of these findings of fact the plea of good faith of the appellant that he wrote the letter dated 2 August, 1962 pursuant to the application and the resolution of the residents of Sujanpur loses all force and has numberfoundation.,
The appellant further claimed that the said application marked Exhibit W. I A was read by the Secretary of the Municipal Committee, Sujanpur at the meeting on 29 July, 1962.
Exhibit D.B. is a memorandum by the residents of Sujanpur to the Civil Surgeon and bears the date 27 August, 1962.
L. Kohli, for the appellant.
The case started on a companyplaint filed by Bishan Kaur on 23 October, 1963.
The companyplaint was that the appellant Chaman Lal who was at that time President of Municipal Committee, Sujanpur in the District of Gurdaspur had made defamatory remarks against her character at a public meeting held at Sujanpur on 29 July, 1962 and that he further wrote a letter on 2 August, 1962 to the Civil Surgeon, Gurdaspur which companytained defamatory statements against her character and further that on 27 August, 1962 the appellant repeated those defamatory allegations before the Civil Surgeon.
Thirdly, the resolution alleged by the appellant to have been passed by the residents of Sujanpur at the meeting on 29 July, 1962 was also a forged document.
This finding number only disproves good faith but establishes total lack of care and prudence on the part of the appellant.
Documents do number prove themselves.
Exhibit D.B. was number proved by the persons who are alleged to have signed the same number was the truth of statements companytained in Exhibit B. proved.
