Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 26

INTRODUCTION

The law gives protection to a mans reputation, which to some is


dearer than life itself. Love of reputation inspires people to do
great things, acquire fame and name, which is the mainspring of
life in every walk of life. The aim of the law of defamation is to
protect ones reputation, honour and dignity in the society. A
person needs protection of his reputation, honour, integrity and
character as much as the right to the enjoyment of property, health
personal safety, liberty and a number of other privileges.
According to Windfield and Jolowics1Defamation is the publication of a statement which reflects on a
persons reputation and tends to lower him in the estimation of
right thinking members of the society generally or tends to make
them shun or avoid him
Defamation (libel), an injury to a persons reputation, is both a
crime and a civil wrong. An aggrieved person may file a criminal
prosecution as well as a civil suit for damages for defamation.
In Govind Charyulu v. Sheshagiri Rao,2 it was held that
withdrawal of a criminal complaint on tender of apology is no bar
to a civil action for libel unless there is a specific agreement
barring a civil action.
The law of civil defamation, as in English and other common law
countries, is uncodified in India; it is largely based on case law.
The law of criminal defamation on the other hand is codified in
section 499 to 502 IPC. In England the publication of a criminal
libel is a punishable to the extent of 1 year imprisonment and fine;

1
2

On tort 10th edition by W.V.H Rogers (1984).p.293.


AIR 1941 Mad 860(861).

and if the publication is with the knowledge of its untruth 2 years


vide section 5 of the Libel Act, 1843.3
In a civil action for defamation in tort, truth is a defence, but in a
criminal action, the accused must prove both the truth of the matter
and that its publication was for the public good. The defence of
truth is not satisfied merely by proving that the publisher honestly
believed the statement to be true, he must prove that the statement
was in fact true.
Sec-499. DefamationWhoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by
signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any
imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or
knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation with
harm, the reputation of such person , is said , except in the
cases hereinafter, to defame that person.
Explanation 1- It may amount to defamation to impute anything to
a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of
that person if living and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of
his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2- It may amount to defamation to make an imputation
concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as
such.
Explanation 3- An imputation in the form of an alternative or
expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4- No imputation is said to harm a persons reputation,
unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of
3

Smith and Hogan Criminal law, 6th edn,(1988),pp 822-825.

others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or


lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his
calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be
believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a
state generally considered as disgraceful.
ILLUSTRATIONS
A says-Z is an honest man; he never stole Bs watch,
intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal Bs watch.
This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the
exceptions.
A is asked who stole Bs watch. A point to Z, intending to
cause it to be believed that Z stole Bs watch. This is
defamation unless it falls within one of the exceptions
A draws a picture of Z running away with Bs watch,
intending it to be believed that Z stole Bs watch. This is
defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions.
Ingredients of Defamation
The offence of defamation consists of the following essential
ingredients, viz:1) Making or publishing of an imputation concerning a person;
2) Such imputation should have been made,
a) by words either spoken or written, or
b) by signs or
c) by visible representations;
3) The said imputation should have been made with intent to
harm or knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm the
reputation of such person or defame him.4

R v. Robinson,(1971) 1 QB 357.

The section is aimed at protection of the reputation, integrity and


honour of the persons. The definition of the offence contains three
important elements, viz..,
I. the person
II. his reputation and
III. the harm to reputation of the person with necessary mens rea
(guilty mind).
If the imputation is defamatory per se, necessary mens rea will be
presumed. The maker of the statement must know that it will harm
the reputation of one concerning whom the allegation is made.
Explanation 1 includes even a dead person. The gist of the offence
is dissemination of harmful imputation concerning a person.5
The offence is non-cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the
permission of the court, and triable by the Court of Session.
Imputation
Imputation implies an accusation which is something more than an
expression of suspicion. Some of the imputations that have been
held to be defamatory are : to call a man a drunkard, 6 black
marketeeer,7 goonda,8 a woman of loose character,9 an illegitimate
person,10
a trader as an insolvent,11 imputation against the deceased,12 etc.
similarly, the words,coward, dishonest man, and something
worse than either, and words to the effect that the complainant and
others were preparing to bring a false charge against the accused 13
were held to be defamatory.
5

Narottamdas v. Patel Maganabhai Revabha, 1984 Cr LJ 1790(Guj).


Horilal v. Vishwanath, 1957 Cr LJ 1360.
7
K.S Namjundaiah v. S.C Thippanna AIR 1952 Mys 123.
8
Chellappen Pillai case 1961 KLT 1006.
9
Kanwal Lal case AIR 1963 SC 1317.
10
N.K Singh v. R.B.Singh AIR 1964 Manipur 20.
11
Bhikachand case AIR 1927 Sindh 24.
12
Laxminarayan Singh v. Shriram Sharma 1982 Cr LR 68(MP)
13
McCarthy. (1887) 1 LR 9 ALL 420.
6

It is immaterial whether the imputation is conveyed obliquely or


indirectly, or by way of question, conjecture, exclamation, or by
irony.
Concerning any person
The words must contain an imputation concerning some particular
person or persons whose identity can be established. That person
need not necessarily be a single individual. A newspaper is not a
person and therefore it is not an offence to defame a newspaper.
Defamation of a newspaper may in certain cases, involve
defamation of those responsible for its publication.14
All those who compose, dictate write or in any way contribute to
the making of a libel are liable for defamation. For instance, if one
indicates, other writes and the third approves of what is written,
they are all makers of it and are jointly liable
In case of Sunilkhya v. H.M Jadwet15, it was noted that
murdering a mans reputation by a libel may be compared to
murdering a man in which all who are present an encourage the act
are guilty, though the injury might have been by one only.
Intention on the part of the accused to harm the reputation, or the
knowledge or reasonable belief that an imputation will harm the
reputation of the person concerned is one of the essential
ingredients of the offence of defamation.
Imputation by words either spoken or written

14
15

Shibo Prasad Pandah,(1878) 4 Cal 124.


AIR 1968 Cal 266

An essential difference between the Indian and the English law is


that the former recognizes words spoken as a mode of defamation,
and the latter does not. By the English law, defamation is a crime
only when it is committed by writing, printing, engraving or some
similar process. The Penal code makes no distinction between
written and spoken (verbal) defamation. The term defamation
under section 499 is wide to embrace both libel and slander.
The words visible representation will include every possible form
of defamation which ingenuity can devise. For instance, a statue, a
caricature, effigy, chalk marks on wall, signs, or pictures etc. may
constitute a libel.
In Monson v. Tussaudas Ltd.16, the publication of a group
photograph with false caption in a newspaper depicting the persons
in the photograph as soldiers of a goondawar was held to be
defamatory.
Publication
The defamatory matter must be published, that is communicated to
some person other than the person about whom it is addressed. For
instance, dictation of defamatory matter in a letter to clerk, writing
on a postcard, or printing on paper or distributing or broadcasting
constitutes publication.
When an employee submits a defamatory petition to a superior
officer, who in the ordinary course of an official routine sends for
inquiry, there is a publication of the letter at the place where it is
received for which the original writer prima facie would be
responsible.17 Similarly, a communication to a husband or wife of a
charge against the wife or husband is publication, but the uttering
16
17

(1894) 1 QB 671
Raja Shah, (1889) P.R. No 14 of 1889.

of a libel by a husband to his wife and vice-versa is not, as they are


one in the eyes of the law.18
Publication of defamatory matters in newspaper
In the matter of defamation, the position of a newspaper is in no
way different from that of a member of the public in general. The
responsibility in either case is the same. The publisher of a
newspaper is responsible for defamatory matter published in the
paper, whether he knew the contents of such paper or not.
In Q.E v. McLeod,19 it was held that the sending of a newspaper
containing defamatory matter by post from Calcutta, where it is
published, addressed to a subscriber at Allahabad, is publication of
such defamatory matter at Allahabad.
Imputation to harm reputation
There must be an intention to harm the reputation of the
complainant or the knowledge that the imputation will harm the
reputation of such person. It is not necessary that actual harm
should result.
In Wahid Ullah Anwari case,20 where certain articles published in
a paper contained scandalous accusations against the girl students
of a college, and implied that the girls were habitually guilty of the
misbehaviour described in the articles, each girl individually
suffering in reputation, could bring an action for defamation.
The expression harms means harm to the reputation of the
aggrieved party. The meaning attached to the word harm is not in
the ordinary sense in which it is used. By harm is meant
18

Wenman v. Ash (1853) 13 CB 836.


1880 ILR 3 ALL 342.
20
AIR 1935 ALL 743.
19

imputation on a mans character made and expressed to others so


as to a lower him in their estimation. Anything which lowers him
merely in his own estimation does not constitute defamation.
Character and Reputation-Distinguished
Character is what a person actually is; while reputation is what
neighbours and others say that he is. A man may have in fact good
character and yet suffer from bad reputation or vice-versa. 21 A
mans opinion of himself cannot be called his reputation. A man
has no reputation to himself and, therefore, communication of
defamatory to the person defamed is not publication.
In Mukund Chitnis v. Madhuri Chitnis,22 it was held that the act
of husband suspecting wifes chastity on wedding night itself and
resorting to mud-slinging and character assassination amounts to
defamation.
Exceptions to section-499 IPC
Section 499 provides ten exceptions to the charge of defamation
when a statement would not attract penalty. These are based on the
ground of truth, good faith or public interest, and strike a balance
between freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under
article 19(1)(a) of the constitution and the individuals right to
reputation. The burden of proof of the exception is on the accused.
These exceptions are as stated below:
First Exception- Imputation of truth in public interest for
public good

21
22

Narottamdas v. Patil Maganbhai, 1984 Cr LJ 1790


AIR 1992 SC 1840

It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning


any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should
be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a
question of fact.
To invoke this Exception two conditions must be proved:I. that the alleged imputation regarding the complainant was
true; and
II. that its publication was for the public good.
If any one of the two conditions is not satisfied, Exception 1 would
not be attracted. So though the truth of a defamatory matter is a
complete defence to an action for damages in a civil suit, it is not
so in a prosecution for the crime of defamation.
Where a person makes a comment upon the conduct of a public
servant and it is for the public good, no action will lie against him
so long as the comments are honestly made and there is no willful
misrepresentation. No amount of truth will justify a libel unless its
publication was for the public good. The question of public good
has to be considered from the point of view of the good of the
general public as contrary to that of an individual. The onus of
providing the two ingredients is on the appellant. Public good is a
question of fact and good faith has also to be established as a fact.
In Radha Govind Dutta v. Saila Kumar Mukherjee,23 the
accused, an editor of a newspaper, published an article in the form
of a questionnaire referring to certain defamatory allegations
against the complainant contained in a leaflet distributed a few
days prior to the publication by him. The questionnaire made of
direct imputation against the complainant but merely stated that
certain complaint had been received against the complainant and
called upon him to remove all doubts in the minds of the public by
23

AIR 1950 Cal 343

stating as to whether the complaints were correct. Held, that the


questionnaire virtually amounted to a publication of the
defamatory statements contained in the leaflet, and the accused
would be guilty of the offence of defamation, unless he was
protected by the exceptions mentioned in section 499, IPC. To
receive the benefit of Exception 1, the accused must prove that the
statements contained in the questionnaire were substantially true,
i.e. true in regard to the material portion of the allegation or
insinuations.
In Vishan Sarup v. Nardeo Shastri,24 a newspaper editor acts
within his legitimate sphere when he offers criticism of what he
considers and bone fide believes it to be for the good of the
community. But he is not protected if under the garb of criticism he
employs language calculated to defame or degrade the character of
a public servant or a private citizen or a politician. In order to pass
the test of fair comment the publication must be free from malice
and made bone fide in the public interest.
Second Exception- Public conduct of public servants
It is not defamation to express in a good faith any opinion
whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the
discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far
as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Exception 2 deals with criticism of public servants.
Where an editor of a newspaper is prosecuted for defamation under
the section 500, IPC for publishing some defamatory statements
complaining about the conduct of the jail superintendent towards
the prisoners and about the defective sanitary fittings and medical
arrangements in the jail, the accused must show that the opinion
expressed by him was confined to the character of the official
24

AIR 1965 ALL 439

concerned so far as it appeared in his conduct in the discharge of


his public functions.
In K. Rama Rao v. Emperor,25 the accused must show that he had
reasonable grounds for believing that the conduct attributed is true.
If the accused accepted the allegations made by certain prisoners
affected by the alleged conduct of the jail superintendent as true,
after hearing the interested party only and without giving the other
party concerned an opportunity to refute them, he cannot be said to
have acted with due care and attention and therefore in good faith
so as to bring himself within the second and ninth exception to
section 499, IPC.
In Purushottam Vijay v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 26 the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh, while observing that a newspaper
should be more cautious and careful than a private individual, has
stated the requirements of the defence available under the second
and third exception to section 499. These are:
I. the facts (on which the comment is offered) should be
substantially true;
II. the comments should be fair, in the sense that they are
inspired by a genuine desire on the part of the writer to serve
the public interest, and not by any intention of venting
private spite; and
III. The criticism should be in the public interest, and for public
good. It should not be malicious. It is for the accused to
show that these requirements are satisfied.

Third Exception- Conduct of any person touching any public


question.
25
26

AIR 1943 Oudh 1.


(1961) 2 Cr LJ 114

It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever


respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question,
and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that
conduct, and no further.
This exception thus has a positive as well as negative aspect. The
positive aspect is concerned with those situations wherein the
exception applies, and the negative aspect is concerned with the
limitations to which the exception is subjected to.
The conduct of publicist who takes part in politics or other matters
concerning the public can be commented on in good faith.
Illustration
it is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion
whatever respecting Zs conduct in petitioning government on a
public question, in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public
question, in presiding or attending at such meeting, in forming or
joining any society which invites the public support, in voting or
canvassing for a particular candidate for any situation in the
efficient discharge of the duties of which the public is interested.

Fourth Exception- Publication of reports of proceedings of


court
The fourth exception to section 499 provides that it is no
defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings
of a court or of the result of any such proceedings. The explanation
to the exception provides that a justice of the peace or other officer

holding an inquiry in open court, preliminary to a trial in a court of


justice, is a court within the meaning of the above exception.
In Annanda Prasad v. Manotosan Roy,27 it was held that it is not
necessary under this exception that the proceedings of the court
should be published continuously. The publication need not be true
by word, but should give a substantially true account of the
proceedings. Good faith is not an ingredient of the Exception.
Fifth Exception- Merits of a case decided in court or conduct of
witnesses and others
This exception deals with comments expressed on the merits of a
case which has been already decided in a court or comment
relating to the conduct of parties and witnesses in any such case. It
is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever
respectinga) The merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been
decided by a court; or
b) The conduct of any person as a party, witness or an agent in
any such proceeding; or
c) The character of such person, so far as his character appears
in that conduct and no further.

Illustrationa) A says- I think Zs evidence on that trial is so contradictory


that he must be stupid or dishonest. A is within this
exception if he says this is in good faith, in as much as the
opinion which he expresses respects Zs character as it
appears in Zs conduct as a witness, and no further.
27

AIR 1953 Cal 503

b) But if A says-I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial


because I know him to be a man without veracity; A is not
within this exception, in as much as the opinion which he
expresses of Zs character, is an opinion not founded on Zs
conduct as a witness.
Sixth Exception- Merits of public performance
This exception deals with literary criticism of public performances
submitted to its judgment. It covers criticism of books published
on literature, art, painting, speeches made in public, acting, singing
etc. The criticism should be fair and made in good faith. An
opinion expressed in good faith respecting the merits of any
performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the
public is exempt from criminal liability. Review of a published
work will come under this Exception.
The explanation to the exception provides that a performance may
be submitted to the judgment of the public expressly, or by acts on
the part of the author which imply such submission to the
judgment of the public.
Illustrationsa) A person, who publishes a book, submits that book to the
judgment of the public.
b) A person, who makes a speech in public, submits that speech
to the judgment of the public.
c) An actor or singer, who appears on a public stage, submits
his acting or singing in the judgment of the public.
d) A says of a book published by Z- Zs book is foolish; Z
must be a weak man. Zs book is indecent; Z must be a man
of impure mind. A is within this exception, if he says this in
good faith, in as much as the opinion which he expresses of

Z respects Zs character only so far as it appears in Zs book,


and no further.
e) But if A says-I am not surprised that Zs book is foolish and
indecent, for he is a weak man and a libertine. A is not
within this exception, in as much as the opinion which he
expresses of Zs character is an opinion not founded on Zs
book.
In Emperor v. Abdul Wadood Ahmed,28 it was emphasised that
the responsibility of the critic of a public performance, where he
seeks to rely on the responsibility of the critic of a public
performance, where he seeks to rely on the defence of fair
comment underlying this exception is to be judged by the effect
which his comment is calculated to produce, and not by his
intention. The object of the sixth exception is that the public should
in its evaluation of a performance be aided by a comment on that
performance and the comment must make it clear that the
judgment of the public is sought to be added only such evidence as
is supplied by the public performance.

Seventh Exception- Censure passed in good faith by person


having lawful authority over another.
This exception provides that it is not defamation of a person
having over another any authority, either conferred by law or
arising out of lawful contract made with another, to pass in good
faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which
such lawful authority relates. The illustration to the Exception
gives six instances of censure protected by this exception, if good
28

(1907) 1 LR 31 Bom 293.

faith is established. For instance the following acts of censure fall


within the purview of this exceptionI. A judge censuring the conduct of a witness, or of an officer
of the court;
II. A head of a department censuring those who are under him;
III. A parent censuring his or her child in the presence of other
children;
IV. A school master whose authority is derived from a parent
censuring a pupil in the presence of other pupils;
V. A master censuring a servant for remissness in service; and
VI. A banker censuring the cashier of his bank for the conduct of
the cashier as such cashier.
In Jotinder Nath Mukherji case,29 a municipal engineer reported
to the municipality as a result of an inquiry that a stock of metal
was taken away by the contractor. Held, that if the report is made
in good faith, the seventh exception is to be applied.

Eighth Exception- Accusation preferred (made) in good faith to


authorised person
It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against
any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that
person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.
An accused relying on exception 8 to section 499, IPC need not
establish the truth of his allegation. All that he needs to do is to
show that there were reasonable grounds for believing in the
29

AIR 1934 Pat 548

allegations, and that he acted on the bona fide belief that the
allegations were true.
In Ramesh Roy v. King,30 it was held that if a person signs a
petition to the chairman of Lucknow Development Authority
against defective construction of houses, along with several other
residents of the locality, he can be said to have acted in good faith.
IllustrationIf A in good faith accuses Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith
complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Zs master; if A in
good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a child, to Zs father- A
is within this exception.
Ninth exception- Imputation made in good faith by person for
protection of his or others interest
It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of
another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the
protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other
person, or for the public good.

IngredientsThere are two ingredients essential for applying the exception,


viz:30

AIR 1952 Cal 228 (229).

1. The statement must be made for protecting the interest of


the maker or recipient of the communication or for the
public good, and;
2. The communication must be made in good faith.
The exception protecting the person to whom the communication
is made has an interest in protecting, the person making the
accusation. The interest of the person referred to in this exception
has to be real and legitimate when communication is made in
protection of the interest of the person making it.
This exception refers to any imputation made in good faith. In
determining the question of good faith, regard should be had for
the intellectual capacity of the accused, his predilections
(preferences) and the surrounding facts. The standard of care and
caution required varies with the circumstances of each case.
In Sahib Singh Mehra v. State of Uttar Pradesh,31 the appellant
was prosecuted under section 500 of the IPC for publishing an
article entitled ulta chor kotwal ko dante in a newspaper named
kalyug dated September 23, 1960 published from Aligarh.
The SC held that the impugned remarks were per se defamatory of
the group of persons referred to. There was nothing on the record
to establish that the defamatory remarks were made in good faith
and after due care and attention as to their truth, nor was there
anything to indicate that the statements were made for the
protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other
person, or for the public good, attracting the provisions of
Exception 3 or Exception 9 of section 499 of the IPC.
The court further said:
the press has great power in impressing the minds of the people
and it is essential that persons responsible for publishing anything
31

AIR 1965 SC 1451

in newspapers should take good care before publishing anything


which tends to harm the reputation of a person. Reckless
comments are to be avoided. When one is proved to have made
defamatory comment with an ulterior motive and without the least
justification, motivated by self interest, he deserves a deterrent
punishment.
In Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab,32 the SC set aside the
conviction of the appellant, who had been prosecuted under section
500, IPC. Surinder Singh kairon, the son of Pratap Singh Kairon,
the then chief minister of the minister of the state of Punjab, had
complained that the appellant had published from Bombay, on July
23, 1957. Extracts from which were given wide publicity in a
number of local, regional and national papers were highly
defamatory of Mr. Kairon.
The apex court said that, as the impugned statement was for the
public good, the appellant was entitled to claim the protection of
Exception 9 to section 499 of the IPC.
In Manna v. Ram Galam,33 it was held that communication of a
caste resolution excommunicating a member of a caste, by one of
the members of the caste to the other member is covered by
Exception 9 to section 499, IPC, in as much as every member of
that caste is bound in his own interest and in the interest of the
caste to publish the resolution, for saving himself and others from
the defilement.
Tenth Exception- Caution intended for good of person to whom
conveyed or for public good
It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one
person against another, provided that such caution, be intended for
32
33

AIR 1966 SC 97
AIR 1950 ALL 619

the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person


in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.
Most of the recorded decisions on the tenth exception relate to
caste matters, and things done at cast meetings. They do not decide
any points of general importance or juristic interest.
In Thiagaraya v. Krishnasami,34 the complainant, a Brahmin who
had been out of caste, was re-admitted by the executive committee
of the caste after performing (accepting punishment) expiatory
ceremonies. This re-admission was not approved by the accused,
who formed a faction of the class; and they after an interval of six
months, distributed in the bazaar to all classes of the public,
printed papers in which the complainant was described as a
doshi or sinner, which signified that he was a person unfit to be
associated with. Held, the accused had not under the circumstances
acted in good faith, and that the publication was not under the
circumstances privileged and protected by the sec 499 Exception
10 of the penal code and that the accused were accordingly guilty
of defamation.

Sec-500. Punishment for defamation- whoever defames another


shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

34

1892 ILR 15 Mad 214

Law of Crimes

Defamation

MADE BY:SAAD SAEED


B.A.LL.B (H) SEM-IV

LIST OF CASESGovind Charyulu v. Sheshagiri Rao


R v. Robinson

AIR 1941 Mad 860(861)


(1971) 1 QB 357

Narottamdas v. Patel Maganabhai


Horilal v. Vishwanath
K.S Namjundaiah v. S.C Thippanna
Chellappen Pillai case
.
Kanwal Lal case
N.K Singh v. R.B.Singh
Bhikachand case
Laxminarayan Singh v. Shriram

1984CrLJ1790 (Guj)
1957 Cr LJ 1360
AIR 1952 Mys 123
1961 KLT 1006
AIR 1963 SC 1317
AIR 1964 Manipur20
AIR 1927 Sindh24
1982 Cr LR 68(MP)

McCarthy

(1887) 1 LR 9 ALL420

Raja Shah

(1889) P.R. No 14 of1889

Wenman v. Ash

(1853) 13 CB 836

Shibo Prasad Pandah

(1878) 4 Cal124

Monson v. Tussaudas Ltd

(1894) 1 QB671

Q.E v. McLeod
Mukund Chitnis v. Madhuri Chitnis

1880 ILR 3 ALL 342


AIR 1992 SC 1840

Sunilkhya v. H.M Jadwet


Radha Govind Dutta v. Saila Kumar
Vishan Sarup v. Nardeo Shastri

AIR 1950 Cal 343


AIR 1965 ALL 439

K. Rama Rao v. Emperor

AIR 1943 Oudh 1

Purushottam v. State of Madhya Pradesh

(1961) 2 Cr LJ 114

Annanda Prasad v. Manotosan Roy


Emperor v. Abdul Wadood Ahmed

AIR 1953 Cal 503


(1907) 1 LR 31 Bom293

Jotinder Nath Mukherji case


Ramesh Roy v. King

AIR 1934 Pat 548


AIR 1952 Cal 228(229)

Sahib Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

AIR 1965 SC 1451

Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab


Manna v. Ram Galam
Thiagaraya v. Krishnasami

AIR 1966 SC 97
AIR 1950 ALL 619
1892 ILR 15 Mad 214

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Tort 10th edition by W.V.H Rogers (1984)
Smith and Hogan Criminal law, 6th edn,(1988)
K.D.Gaur, A textbook on the I.P.C (1998)

K.D.Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials (1999)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
For the successful completion of this project, I would like to thank my
Crimes teacher Mr.D.K.Sharma. He made the concepts of the topic
so clear in my mind that it became very easy for me to work on the
topic. It would not have been possible to complete the project work
without his guidance.

I would also like to thank my elder sisters and my elder brother who were a
constant support throughout the project making.
Last, but not the least I would like to thank my Parents who stood by me
through every thick and thin.

Saad Saeed

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi