In February, 1954, the appellant was informed that the questions proposed by him had been disallowed.
The appellant moved the learned Judge for a certificate under Art.
He also obtained stay of fur.
228 of the Constitution for having the case withdrawn to the 1 1951 55 C.W.N. 745.
Thereafter, the appellant moved the High Court under Art.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 11, 1956, of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No.
The appellant then moved this Court and obtained special leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court refusing the claim of privilege.
Those questions were disallowed in accordance with the rules of procedure for the companyduct of business of the Assembly.
After several adjournments, the petitioner raised, by way of preliminary objection to the .criminal prosecution, the question of his absolute privilege and immunity from prosecution under the provision of the Constitution.
65 of 1958.
The petition of companyplaint alleged that the appellant had made and published scandalous imputations against him intending them to be read by members of the public, that those imputations were false and unfounded and had been made with the definite intention of harming or with the knowledge or having reason to believe that they would harm the reputation of the companyplainant and that the companyplainant felt greatly aggrieved and harmed in mind and reputation.
He also alleged that being a Government servant, the, companyplainant had to obtain the necessary permission from the Government for instituting legal proceedings for the vindication of his character as a public servant and that accounted for the delay in filing the petition of companyplaint.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
He relied on a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Dr. Suresh Chandra Banerjee v. Punit Goala 1 in support of his companyclusion that the first accused before him, number appellant, was number entitled to the privilege and immunity claimed by him.
The appellant published the questions that had been disallowed in a local journal called Janamat, in its issue of February 28, 1955.
B. Bagchi and S.N. Mukherjee, for the respondents.
The petition of companyplaint charged the appellant with an offence under s. 500 of the Indian Penal Code and the second and third accused, who have been cited as respondents 2 and 3 in this Court, under s. 501 of the Indian Penal Code.
In January, 1954, the appellant gave numberice of his intention to ask certain questions in the Assembly.
C. Chatterjee, Arun Kumar Dutta and D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant.
The learned Magistrate by his order dated October II,, 1955, overruled the objection and held that the privilege claimed by the accused was number an unqualified one.
The appellant is a citizen of India and an elected member of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly.
1584 of 1955.
He is also a medical practitioner at Ghatal in the Midnapore District of West Bengal.
The facts of this case are number in doubt or dispute and may shortly be stated as follows.
In July, 1955, the first respondent, whose companyduct formed the subject matter of the questions and who was then functioning as a Sub divisional Magistrate, filed a companyplaint against the appellant and two others, the editor, and the printer and publisher respectively of the journal aforesaid.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA, C.J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, dated April 11, 1956, whereby the appellants claim of absolute privilege as a member of the Bengal Legislative Assembly was rejected and the prosecution launched against him under s. 500, Indian Penal Code, was allowed to proceed.
January 16.
