Sanghvi Champaklal Lalchand vs Khushaldas Ratanshi And Anr. on 22 February, 1954
(4) Mr. Sinroja's next contention was that the applicant's statements in the first information report were absolutely privileged and he relied upon 'Queen Empress v. Govinda Pillai', 16 Mad 235 (B); 'Parwari v. Emperor' AIR 1919 All 276 (C) and 'Ganpatram Dinaram v. Mt, Rambai' AIR 1950 Nag 20 (D). These decisions have been noted and discussed by the learned Sessions Judge in his considered judgment. The principle decided in all these cases was that "e-famatory statements made In answer to questions put by an Investigating Officer during an investigation are absolutely privileged. A statement n the first information report however stands on a different footing and cannot enjoy that absolute immunity. Such statements fall within the 5th Exception of Section 499, IPC and the accused can claim privilege only if he can bring them within the purview of that Exception. That Exception says that accusations preferred in good faith against a person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject matter of accusations will not amount to defamation. Good faith of the person making the accusations is therefore an essential condition of exemption from liability for defamation under this Exception. In this case the learned Sessions Judge has held that the applicant's statements in the first information report that he suspected the opponents lacked good faith. He has given detailed reasons for his finding and it is unnecessary to repeat them. The finding is one of fact and the applicant is concluded by it. The applicant no doubt did not make a definite charge of theft against the opponents and mere- ly expressed his suspicions against them but, as the learned .Sessions Judge has pointed o it, that would not make the imputation less defamatory. Consequently the revision is ordered to be dismissed.