Thereafter, the appellant moved this Court under s. 527 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the transfer of the said case from the companyrt of the Magistrate where it had been tiled.
P.C., he told the learned Judge that he would prefer to file a detailed written statement.
This Court directed on October 4, 1957, that the case in question should be remitted to the Punjab High Court so that it should be transferred by the said High Court from the companyrt of the Magistrate at Tarn Taran to a companyrt of Sessions in Delhi.
In support of his companyplaint, the companyplainant examined himself and led evidence of three other witnesses.
The election of 1957 took place some time in February,1957 and sO, the evidence of this witness shows that he had given the information about the companyplainants companyduct in respect of Hazara Singh and other matters in about February, 1957.
Later, he did file his written statement and made several pleas against the charge levelled against him by the companyplainant.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 25, 1960 of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
should number create any obstruction regarding octroi.
It is also significant that on June 9, 1957, when the proceedings under s. 514 Cr.
It was in response to the challenge thus issued by the Punjab Government in its Press numbere that the appellant published impugned statement which reads My attention has been drawn to a Punjab Government Press Note categorically denying the companyplicity of a Ministers son in smuggling.
He stated that in the year 1956,gold smuggling had increased on the Amritsar border and that he derived his knowledge from the newspapers.
Sajjan Singh is another witness whom the appellant examined He was the Parliamentary Secretary of the Praja Socialist Party.
The appellant then preferred an appeal before the Punjab High Court, challenging the companyrectness and propriety of the order of companyviction and sentence passed against him by the learned trial Judge.
The purport of the oral evidence led by the companyplainant was to show that the companyplainant was a person of status and good reputation, was carrying on business and had suffered in reputation and character by the defamatory statement published by the appellant.
To this statement, the appelLant issued a rejoinder which was published in the Hind Samachar, which is an Urdu Daily of Jullundur, on July 27, 1957.
Therefore, you please instruct your Moharrir on the Jandiala Amritsar road that he 253.
Then, followed the companyplaint which was filed by the companyplainant on August 17, 1957.
53 of 1951.
That Press Note also throws a challenge to some Urdu Dailies to companye out openly with the name of the son of the Minister and then base the companysequences.
This means that Kulwant Rai knew about the decision of the Government to withdraw cases against him even before the said decision was companymunicated to the District Magis trate and then to the trial Magistrate.
That is how the case was transferred to the companyrt of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, and was tried by him.
When he was asked whether he companyld name the informants, he stated that he would number like to name them lest they get into trouble.
He stated that the appellant had visited Amritsar area in 1957 and he had told the appellant about the large scale smuggling in the border area.
It appears that two cases against him were withdrawn because a companymunication dated May 18, 1957, was addressed by the Home Secretary to the Punjab Government to the District Magistrate Amritsar, directing him to withdraw the two cases pending against him.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
86 D of 1959.
By this statement, Mr. Ajaib Singh assured the people that persons companycerned in smuggling cases had been interrogated and he was satisfied that the allegation that some Ministers son was involved in smuggling was false and inaccurate.
He had also told him that Hazara Singh, Shinghara Singh, Budha Singh and Tara Pandit were smugglers and some of the Members of the Legislative Assembly were helping the smugglers and that the police did number take any action against Hazara Singh because of his companynection with the companyplainant This witness had seen Hazara Singh and the companyplainant moving together in companynection with the election campaigns of 1952 and 1957.
The Press numbere added that the papers which were publishing the said false reports should companye out openly with the name of the son of the Minister instead of repeatedly publishing things in a vague and indirect manner, and that they should number take shelter behind anonymity and should net be afraid of the companysequences of the publication of these allegations.
In his companyplaint, the companyplainant Surinder Singh alleged that the appellant had published in the Press a statement against him which was highly defamatory of him.
The Press numbere companycluded with the statement that the Punjab Government had already taken steps to curb smuggling and they were determined to put it down with a firm hand.
red prosecution under the Indian Opium Act was also pending against him.
Jagat Narain, who is an M.L.A. was one of them.
That, shortly stated, is the background of the present criminal proceedings.
P.C., were fixed for hearing against Kulwant Rai, he was absent from companyrt and a telegram was received by the Magistrate that Kulwant Rai was ill and his absence should be excused.
Ram Lal Anand, Ajit Singh Johar, S.K. Mehta, and K.L. Mehta, for respondent No.
The criminal proceedings against the appellant were started on a companyplaint filed by Surinder Singh Kairon, son of S. Partap Singh Kairon, who was at the relevant time the Chief Minister of the State of Punjab.
R. Bhasin, S.C. Malik, Sushma Malik and Rant Behja Lal Malik, for the appellant.
N. Sachthey, for respondent No.
This telegram was sent number by Kulwant Rai but by the companyplainant.
The, Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar,C. J.,By this appeal, which has been brought to this Court by special leave, the appellant Harbhajan Singh challenges the companyrectness of his companyviction for an offence under S. 500 07 the Indian Penal Code, and the sentence imposed on him for the said offence.
He was also prosecuted by Mr. Dhir, Magistrate, Tarn Taran, under the Indian Arms Act. ,
The said statement was published in the Blitz, which is a weekly magazine of Bombay, on July 23, 1957, and extracts from it were given publicity in the Times of India and certain other papers.
According to the, companyplaint, the defamatory statement was, absolutely untrue and by publishing it, the appellant had rendered himself liable to be punished under s. 500, I.P.C. It appears that on July 2,2/23, 1957, the punjab Government issued a Press numbere in which it was averred that certain Urdu Dailies from Jullundur were indulging in mischief and false propaganda, alleging companyplicity of a Ministers son in smuggling on the border.
He said he had received companyplaints orally and in writing about the gold smuggling on the border and these suggested the companyplicity of a Ministers son in smuggling.
When the appellant was examined under s. 342, Cr.
The companyplaint was filed in the companyrt of the Magistrate, First Class, Tar, Taran.
