Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. We are of opinion that the report of the police officer in the present case might either be considered as part of a judicial proceeding or as a State proceeding. Learned Counsel for the appellant invited. attention to the fact that in the Criminal Procedure Code a judicial proceeding was defined in Section 4(1)(m) as "includes any proceeding in the course of which evidence is or may be legally taken on oath," and he argued that as the Circle Inspector's proceedings and report were not evidence taken on oath, therefore, it could not be said that the report was part of the judicial proceedings. But we understand that the words "judicial proceedings," include the whole proceeding from the filing of the complaint until the decision of the Court, and under Section 202 an inquiry or investigation may be ordered and such inquiry or investigation is part of the judicial proceedings. It is on the result of the inquiry or investigation that the Magistrate takes further action either by dismissing the complaint under Section 203 or issuing a process for the appearance of the accused. In regard to the third class of absolute privilege, naval, military and State proceedings, learned Counsel for the appellant argued that State proceedings in the English books oil libel and slander only cover the proceedings of high officers of State. We do not think that any such meaning is to be attached to the words "State proceedings," and as regards officers of State in India all servants of the Government high or low of a certain degree are classed under Section 2(17), Civil P.C., as public officers and in that class of public officers the defendant comes under Sub-section (f) as an officer of Government whose duty it is as such officer to prevent offences, etc. If therefore, there is a privilege of this nature in India, it must apparently be for all public officers within the definition of Section 2, Sub-section (17), as that Code draws no distinction between officers who belong to the class of the Secretary of State and high officers of that nature and other officers who are not so highly placed. But the English rulings do not support the argument put forward for the appellant; on the contrary in Chatterton v. Secretary of State (1895) 2 Q.B. 189 it is laid down at p. 190 that there is absolute privilege for every official letter written by an officer of the State in the course of the performance of his official duty, and the same proposition has been laid down in Salaman v. Secretary of State (1906) 1 K.B. 613. In Burr v. Smith (1909) 2 K.B. 613 there was the case of the report by a liquidator in bankruptcy proceedings and it was held that this report had an absolute privilege. In that case and in Watson v. M. Ewan (1905) A.C. 480 it was held that all documents are privileged which are necessary to the preparation or conduct of litigation provided the proceeding is or is pending before a Court of competent jurisdiction and the publication is made at a proper time and place.