# SUKRA MABTO v. BASDEO KUMAR MAHTO & ANR

- **Citation:** [1971] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 329
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1968
- **Bench:** C. A. Vaidiaungam, A. N. Ray
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sukra-mabto-v-basdeo-kumar-mahto-anr-5249
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Indian Penal Coie, s. 499 Ninth Exception-Charge of defamationT o come within Ninth Exception aacused must prove that he made state-
'nent in good faith or in protection of his own interest or someone else's
intert'st-lngredients of good faith.
There was a proceeding under s. 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code
between the respondents and the appellant regarding some agricultural
land in Bihar. The land was recorded in the names of the two brothers
Karma Ahir and Faizu Ahir.
The appellant was the grandson of the
fornlcr. The first respondent and his brother claimed the land as sons of
Falzu Ahir by his second wife. Both the parties were called upon to show
cause. The appellant in showing cause described the first respondent and his
brother as illegltimat'e sons of Faizu Ahir having been born of a concubine.
A complaint was filed against the appellant for having made the above
defamatory statement. The appellant pleaded not guilty. The trial magistrate held that the statement in question was false and defamatory and convicted the appellant under •· 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Judicial Commissioner upheld the conviction.
The Patna High
Court dismissed the appellants application in revision.
In appeal before
this Court by special leave, the question for consideration was 1.\<hether
the appellant could claim the benefit of the Ninth Exception to s. 499 of
the Indian Penal Code.
HELD: The ingredients of the Ninth Exception are first that the imputation must be in good faith, secondly the imputation must be for protection of the person making it or of any other person or for the public
good. These are all questions of fact. [3320]
A
B
c
D
E
The person alleaing good faith has to establish as a fact that he
F
made enquiry before he made the imputation and he has to give reasons
and facts to indicate that he acted with due care and attention and was
•ati&fied tba! the imputation was true. Tho proof of the truth of the statement is not an element of the Ninth Exception as of the First Exception
to s. 499. In the Ninth Exception the person making the imputation has
to sub!;tantiate that his enquiry was a attended with due care and attention
and he was thus satisfied that the imputation was true. The accent is on
tho enquiry, care and objective and not subjective satisfaction. [332F-G]
G
Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1965] 3 S.C.R. 235 and C/Jaman
Lal v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1372, relied on.
Jn the present case .there was no evidence to show that before making
the imputation the appellant made any enquiry in good faith. The appellant had not shown due care and attention before making the imputation.
H
By reason of the findings of fact that the appellant did not ac! with care
and caution and secondly that the appellant was related to the respondent
and thirdly that no enquiry was made by the appellant, the appellant could
not claim good faith. [333C)
338
SUPRIME OOURT lllPORTS
[1971] SUPP. s.c.R.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
Just because a proceeding is pending it will not be open to a p«BOR
to impute the statements of the nature in the present case. Thore was no
qucsllon of title involved. Even if title is involved that by itself wll not
entitle a person to make a defamatory statement and then take tho plea.
that it was for. the protection of interest. Protection of interest of persoa
making the imputation will have to be established by showing that the
imputation was itself the protection of interest of the person makiqg
it~
In the present case the question was who was in possession of land.
It
would not be open to a person to deny or resist possession in proceeding
under s. 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code by hurling defamatory invectives and then claim the benefit of protection of interest. [3330]
The appeal must accordingly fail.

## Text

329
SUKRA MABTO
v.
BASDEO KUMAR MAHTO & ANR.
Aprr1 2, 1971
[C. A. VAIDIAUNGAM AND A. N. RAY, JJ.J
Indian Penal Coie, s. 499 Ninth Exception-Charge of defamationT o come within Ninth Exception aacused must prove that he made state-
'nent in good faith or in protection of his own interest or someone else's
intert'st-lngredients of good faith.
There was a proceeding under s. 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code
between the respondents and the appellant regarding some agricultural
land in Bihar. The land was recorded in the names of the two brothers
Karma Ahir and Faizu Ahir.
The appellant was the grandson of the
fornlcr. The first respondent and his brother claimed the land as sons of
Falzu Ahir by his second wife. Both the parties were called upon to show
cause. The appellant in showing cause described the first respondent and his
brother as illegltimat'e sons of Faizu Ahir having been born of a concubine.
A complaint was filed against the appellant for having made the above
defamatory statement. The appellant pleaded not guilty. The trial magistrate held that the statement in question was false and defamatory and convicted the appellant under •· 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Judicial Commissioner upheld the conviction.
The Patna High
Court dismissed the appellants application in revision.
In appeal before
this Court by special leave, the question for consideration was 1.\<hether
the appellant could claim the benefit of the Ninth Exception to s. 499 of
the Indian Penal Code.
HELD: The ingredients of the Ninth Exception are first that the imputation must be in good faith, secondly the imputation must be for protection of the person making it or of any other person or for the public
good. These are all questions of fact. [3320]
A
B
c
D
E
The person alleaing good faith has to establish as a fact that he
F
made enquiry before he made the imputation and he has to give reasons
and facts to indicate that he acted with due care and attention and was
•ati&fied tba! the imputation was true. Tho proof of the truth of the statement is not an element of the Ninth Exception as of the First Exception
to s. 499. In the Ninth Exception the person making the imputation has
to sub!;tantiate that his enquiry was a attended with due care and attention
and he was thus satisfied that the imputation was true. The accent is on
tho enquiry, care and objective and not subjective satisfaction. [332F-G]
G
Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1965] 3 S.C.R. 235 and C/Jaman
Lal v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1372, relied on.
Jn the present case .there was no evidence to show that before making
the imputation the appellant made any enquiry in good faith. The appellant had not shown due care and attention before making the imputation.
H
By reason of the findings of fact that the appellant did not ac! with care
and caution and secondly that the appellant was related to the respondent
and thirdly that no enquiry was made by the appellant, the appellant could
not claim good faith. [333C)
338
SUPRIME OOURT lllPORTS
[1971] SUPP. s.c.R.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
Just because a proceeding is pending it will not be open to a p«BOR
to impute the statements of the nature in the present case. Thore was no
qucsllon of title involved. Even if title is involved that by itself wll not
entitle a person to make a defamatory statement and then take tho plea.
that it was for. the protection of interest. Protection of interest of persoa
making the imputation will have to be established by showing that the
imputation was itself the protection of interest of the person makiqg
it~
In the present case the question was who was in possession of land.
It
would not be open to a person to deny or resist possession in proceeding
under s. 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code by hurling defamatory invectives and then claim the benefit of protection of interest. [3330]
The appeal must accordingly fail.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 53
of 1968.
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.
Ganpat Rai, for the appellant
D. Goburdhun and Ram Das Chadha, for respondent No. I.
D. Goburdhun, for the respondent No. 2.
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
tire criminal revisional jurisdiction
against the judgment of the First Additional Judicial Commissioner.
Ranchi dated 31 July, 1967 upholding the conviction and sentence
passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi. The appellant was convicted und@r section 500 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to satfer
simple imprisonment for three months.
Ther~ 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 land was recorded in the names of two
brothers Karma Ahir and Faizu Ahir. The appellant is the grandson of Karma Ahir.
Faizu Ahir had two sons by his first wife.
Both of them died during his lifetime.
The respondent and his
brother Sahdeo Mahto claimed the land as sons of Faizu Ahir by
his second wife.
This led to a dispute between the parties. There
was a proceeding under section 144 of the Criminal Procedure
Code.
Both the parties were called upon to show cause. The
SUKRA MAHTO '·a. IC. VAHTO (Ray,/.)
appellant in showing cause described Basdeo Mahto and his
brother Sahdeo Mahto as illegitimate sons of Faizu Ahir having
bee12 born of concubine.
The prosecution case was that the complainant's brothcr-inlaw was present in the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer in the
month of November, 1965 when the appellant's lawyer submitted
before the Sub Divisional Officer that the respondent and his
brother were illegitimate sons of Faizu Ahir having been born of
concubine.
The complainant then .obtained a certified copy of
the written statement field by the appellant. Thereafter the complainant filed the complaint.
The case of the complainant was
that Faizu Ahir had married Mst. Sauni, who was a widow, in
Sagai form more than 40 years ago according to the custom prevalent among the Yadav community. She was living with Faizu Ahir
as his wedded wife and was treated as such by the community. The
appellant and his brother were born Jong after the marriage and
were the legitimate sons of Faizu Ahir.
The complainant alleged
that the appellant made the statements with a view to humilating
and defaming the appellant and his brother.
The apellant pleaded not guity.
His defence was that the
statements made in the written statements were true.
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
no right.
The findings of fact are these.
Faizu Ahir married Sauni in
Sagai form.
The respondent was the legitimate son of Faizu Ahir.
On these findings the Magistrate held that the statements in the
written statement were false and defamatory.
The appellant was
convicted under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
331
A
c
D
E
The First Additional Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur,
F
Ranchi heard the appeal preferred by the appellant and upheld
the conviction and confirmed the sentence.
The Additional Judicial Commissioner held that the appellant did not lead any oral
evidence to show that he acted in good faith.
The appellant relied
on a certified copy of the deposition of the respondent in case No.
GR. 775 / 65.
There the respondent was asked a question in that
G
case as to whether Faizu Ahir had kept a concubine and whether
he was the son of that concubine.
The respondent replied that
he did not know that Faizu Ahir kept a concubine and that he was
.. the son of the concubine.
On this evidence of the respondent in
case No. GR. 775 / 65 it was argued on behalf of the appellant
before the Judicial Commissioner that the respondent did not cateH
gorically deny the suggestion that Faizu Ahir had kept a concubine
and that he was the son of the concubine, and, therefore, the appellant did not act out of malice.
The Judicial Commissioner held
332
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] SUPP. s.c.R.
that the entire evidence of the respondent in that case was that
Puran and Jitu were his step brothers and the answers were sufficient to show that there was a denial of the suggestion that he was
the son of the concubine.
The answer that the respondent did
not know would not mean that he accepted or did not deny the
suggestion.
The relevant provision in the present case is the Ninth Exception to section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 499 deals
with defamation.
Section 500 prescribes punishment for defamation.
There are nine exceptions to section 499.
These nine
exceptions are the cases in which there is no defamation.
The
Ninth Exception covers the present case and is as follows : -
"It is not defamation to make an imputation on the
character of another provided that the imputation be
made in gooj faith for the protection of the interests of
of the person making it, or of any other person, or for
the public good".
The ingredients of the Ninth Exception are first that the imputation
must be made in good faith; secondly, the imputation must be for
protection of the interest of the person making it or of any other
person or for the public good.
Good faith is a question of fact.
So is protection of the interest of the person making it.
Public
good is also a question of fact. This Court is Harbhajan Singh v.
State of Punjab(') in dealing with the Ninth Exception to section
499 of the Indian Penal Code said that it would have to be found
out whether a person acted with due cate and attention.
This
Court said there "Simple belief or actual belief by itself is not
enough.
The appellant must show that the belief in his impugned
statement had a rational basis and was not just a blind simple
belief.
That is where the element of due care and attention plays
an important role".
The person alleging good faith has to establish as a fact that he made enquiry before he made the imputation
and he has to give reasons and facts to indicate that he acted with
due care and attention and was satisfied that the imputation WdS
true. The proof of the truth of the statement is not an element of
the Ninth Exception as of the First Exception to section 499. In
the Ninth Exception the person making the imputation has to substantiate that his enquiry was attended with due care and atteation
and he was thus satisfied that the imputation was true.
The
accent is on the enquiry, care and objective and not subjective
satisfaction.
This Court in Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab(~ dealing with
good faith in the Ninth Exception said that "in order to establish
(I) [196S) 3 S. C. R. 23S.
(2) A. I. R. 19708. C. 1372.
SUKRA MAHTO F. e. K. MAHTO (Ray, J.)
333
good faith and bonafide it has to be seen first the circumstances
A
ur.der which the letter was written or words were uttered; secondly
whether there was any malice; thirdiy, 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"
B
Judged by these tests laid down in the rulings of this Court
the findings of act in the present case are that there is no evidence
to show that before making the imputation the apellant had made
any enquiry in good faith and the appellant had not shown due care
and Dttention before making the imputation.
By reason of the
C
findings of act that the appellant did not act with care and caution
and secondly thar the appellant was related to the respondent and
thirdly that no enquiry was made by the appellant, the appellant
could not claim good faith.
The second ingredient in the
Ninth Exception is that the
imputation is to be made for the protection of the interest. The
prntection of interest contemplated in the Ninth Exception is that
communication must be made bonufide upon a subject in which
the person making the communication has an interest or duty and
the person to wllom the communic;ition is made has a corresponding interest or duty.
The illustration (a) to the Ninth Exception
typifies that idea :
"A. a shopkeeper, says to B. who manages his business-"Sell nothing to Z unless he pays you ready money,
for I have no opinion of his honesty".
A is within the
exception, if he has made this imputation on Z in good
faith for the protection of his own interests".
There was a ,proceeding under section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Just because a proceeding is pending it will not be
open to a person to impute the statements of the nature in the
present case.
There was no question of title involved. Even if
title is involved that by itself will not entitle a person to make
a dafamtory statement and then take the pie(! that it was for the
protection of interest. Protection of interest of the person making
the imputation will have to be established by showing that the
imputation was itself the protection of interest of the person making it. In the present case, the question was who was in possession or the land. It would not be open to a pesron to deny or
resist possession in proceeding under section 144 of the Criminal
D
E
F
G
H
.334
SUPUME COUllT ltlPORTS
[1971] SUPP. s.c.R.
A.
Procedure Code by hurling defamatory invectives and then claim
the benefit of protection or intcrest.
B
The High Court was justilied in dismissing the revision appli·
cation and not interfering with the judgment and order of the
Judicial Commissioner.
The appeal fails and is dismissed.
G.C.
Appeal dismissed.