Defamation

INTRODUCTIONThe law gives protection to a man’s 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 one’s 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 Jolowics1“Defamation is the publication of a statement which reflects on a person’s 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 person’s 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 person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of 3 Smith and Hogan Criminal law, 6th edn,(1988),pp 822-825. 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. This is defamation. Robinson. viz:1) Making or publishing of an imputation concerning a person. lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person. a) by words either spoken or written. or b) by signs or c) by visible representations.(1971) 1 QB 357. . or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling. intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B’s watch. ILLUSTRATIONS  A says-“Z is an honest man. he never stole B’s watch”. or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state. or lowers the credit of that person.4 4 R v. or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. unless it falls within one of the exceptions. 2) Such imputation should have been made. Ingredients of Defamation The offence of defamation consists of the following essential ingredients. intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B’s watch.  A is asked who stole B’s watch.others. A point to Z. intending it to be believed that Z stole B’s watch. unless it falls within one of the exceptions. This is defamation unless it falls within one of the exceptions  A draws a picture of Z running away with B’s watch. This is defamation. . Vishwanath. The gist of the offence is dissemination of harmful imputation concerning a person.5 The offence is non-cognizable. his reputation and III. compoundable with the permission of the court. R. Explanation 1 includes even a dead person. necessary mens rea will be presumed. S. the words.. Horilal v. 6 black marketeeer. similarly. viz.8 a woman of loose character. 7 K.Singh AIR 1964 Manipur 20. and something worse than either. If the imputation is defamatory per se. Imputation Imputation implies an accusation which is something more than an expression of suspicion. 1957 Cr LJ 1360.7 goonda. Patel Maganabhai Revabha. I. Shriram Sharma 1982 Cr LR 68(MP) 13 McCarthy.The section is aimed at protection of the reputation.9 an illegitimate person.11 imputation against the deceased. 9 Kanwal Lal case AIR 1963 SC 1317. 12 Laxminarayan Singh v. the person II. 8 Chellappen Pillai case 1961 KLT 1006. 10 N. 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.S Namjundaiah v. 6 .B. bailable.10 a trader as an insolvent. and triable by the Court of Session. the harm to reputation of the person with necessary mens rea (guilty mind). 5 Narottamdas v. 11 Bhikachand case AIR 1927 Sindh 24. (1887) 1 LR 9 ALL 420. Some of the imputations that have been held to be defamatory are : to call a man a drunkard.K Singh v. The definition of the offence contains three important elements. integrity and honour of the persons.’coward’. The maker of the statement must know that it will harm the reputation of one concerning whom the allegation is made. dishonest man.C Thippanna AIR 1952 Mys 123. 1984 Cr LJ 1790(Guj).12 etc. dictate write or in any way contribute to the making of a libel are liable for defamation. Concerning any person The words must contain an imputation concerning some particular person or persons whose identity can be established. or by way of question. That person need not necessarily be a single individual. though the injury might have been by one only. AIR 1968 Cal 266 . H. or by irony.M Jadwet15. 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. Intention on the part of the accused to harm the reputation.It is immaterial whether the imputation is conveyed obliquely or indirectly. For instance. Defamation of a newspaper may in certain cases. it was noted that murdering a man’s reputation by a libel may be compared to murdering a man in which all who are present an encourage the act are guilty. involve defamation of those responsible for its publication. A newspaper is not a person and therefore it is not an offence to defame a newspaper. 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. conjecture.14 All those who compose. exclamation. Imputation by words either spoken or written 14 15 Shibo Prasad Pandah.(1878) 4 Cal 124. if one indicates. a caricature. dictation of defamatory matter in a letter to clerk. or printing on paper or distributing or broadcasting constitutes publication. that is communicated to some person other than the person about whom it is addressed. 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. The term defamation under section 499 is wide to embrace both libel and slander. By the English law. engraving or some similar process. (1889) P. and the latter does not. Tussaudas Ltd. In Monson v. chalk marks on wall.17 Similarly. The Penal code makes no distinction between written and spoken (verbal) defamation. but the uttering 16 17 (1894) 1 QB 671 Raja Shah. there is a publication of the letter at the place where it is received for which the original writer prima facie would be responsible. effigy. For instance.An essential difference between the Indian and the English law is that the former recognizes words spoken as a mode of defamation. a communication to a husband or wife of a charge against the wife or husband is publication. Publication The defamatory matter must be published. When an employee submits a defamatory petition to a superior officer. printing. may constitute a libel. or pictures etc. For instance. defamation is a crime only when it is committed by writing.R.16. . writing on a postcard. signs. No 14 of 1889. The words ‘visible representation’ will include every possible form of defamation which ingenuity can devise. a statue. who in the ordinary course of an official routine sends for inquiry. It is not necessary that actual harm should result. The meaning attached to the word ‘harm’ is not in the ordinary sense in which it is used. and implied that the girls were habitually guilty of the misbehaviour described in the articles.E v. 19 .20 where certain articles published in a paper contained scandalous accusations against the girl students of a college. addressed to a subscriber at Allahabad. where it is published. The publisher of a newspaper is responsible for defamatory matter published in the paper.18 Publication of defamatory matters in newspaper In the matter of defamation. Ash (1853) 13 CB 836. as they are one in the eyes of the law. The expression ‘harms’ means harm to the reputation of the aggrieved party. each girl individually suffering in reputation. the position of a newspaper is in no way different from that of a member of the public in general. 20 AIR 1935 ALL 743. is publication of such defamatory matter at Allahabad. The responsibility in either case is the same. McLeod.19 it was held that the sending of a newspaper containing defamatory matter by post from Calcutta. whether he knew the contents of such paper or not. 1880 ILR 3 ALL 342. 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. In Q. By ‘harm’ is meant 18 Wenman v. could bring an action for defamation. In Wahid Ullah Anwari case.of a libel by a husband to his wife and vice-versa is not. A man may have in fact good character and yet suffer from bad reputation or vice-versa. These are based on the ground of truth. communication of defamatory to the person defamed is not publication. Character and Reputation-Distinguished Character is what a person actually is. A man has no reputation to himself and.Imputation of truth in public interest for public good 21 22 Narottamdas v. while reputation is what neighbours and others say that he is. guaranteed under article 19(1)(a) of the constitution and the individuals right to reputation. Madhuri Chitnis.22 it was held that the act of husband suspecting wife’s chastity on wedding night itself and resorting to mud-slinging and character assassination amounts to defamation. and strike a balance between freedom of speech and expression. Anything which lowers him merely in his own estimation does not constitute defamation. In Mukund Chitnis v. 21 A man’s opinion of himself cannot be called his reputation. good faith or public interest. Patil Maganbhai. These exceptions are as stated below: First Exception.imputation on a man’s character made and expressed to others so as to a lower him in their estimation. Exceptions to section-499 IPC Section 499 provides ten exceptions to the charge of defamation when a statement would not attract penalty. 1984 Cr LJ 1790 AIR 1992 SC 1840 . The burden of proof of the exception is on the accused. therefore. So though the truth of a defamatory matter is a complete defence to an action for damages in a civil suit. an editor of a newspaper. that 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. 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. Saila Kumar Mukherjee. The onus of providing the two ingredients is on the appellant. that the alleged imputation regarding the complainant was true. and II. Exception 1 would not be attracted. if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. No amount of truth will justify a libel unless its publication was for the public good. it is not so in a prosecution for the crime of defamation. In Radha Govind Dutta v. Where a person makes a comment upon the conduct of a public servant and it is for the public good. Public good is a question of fact and good faith has also to be established as a fact.23 the accused. To invoke this Exception two conditions must be proved:I.It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person. 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 . Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact. no action will lie against him so long as the comments are honestly made and there is no willful misrepresentation. If any one of the two conditions is not satisfied. In Vishan Sarup v. Nardeo Shastri. Held.e.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. the accused must prove that the statements contained in the questionnaire were substantially true. IPC. i. To receive the benefit of Exception 1. Exception 2 deals with criticism of public servants.stating as to whether the complaints were correct. so far as his character appears in that conduct. the accused must show that the opinion expressed by him was confined to the character of the official 24 AIR 1965 ALL 439 . that the questionnaire virtually amounted to a publication of the defamatory statements contained in the leaflet. and no further. 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. and the accused would be guilty of the offence of defamation. 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. Where an editor of a newspaper is prosecuted for defamation under the section 500. true in regard to the material portion of the allegation or insinuations. 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. unless he was protected by the exceptions mentioned in section 499. In order to pass the test of fair comment the publication must be free from malice and made bone fide in the public interest. or respecting his character. in the sense that they are inspired by a genuine desire on the part of the writer to serve the public interest. while observing that a newspaper should be more cautious and careful than a private individual.Conduct of any person touching any public question. the facts (on which the comment is offered) should be substantially true. (1961) 2 Cr LJ 114 . If the accused accepted the allegations made by certain prisoners affected by the alleged conduct of the jail superintendent as true. It should not be malicious. In K. These are: I. Emperor. 25 26 AIR 1943 Oudh 1. has stated the requirements of the defence available under the second and third exception to section 499. In Purushottam Vijay v. and for public good. 26 the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. and not by any intention of venting private spite. 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. the comments should be fair.25 the accused must show that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the conduct attributed is true. IPC.concerned so far as it appeared in his conduct in the discharge of his public functions. after hearing the interested party only and without giving the other party concerned an opportunity to refute them. Rama Rao v. It is for the accused to show that these requirements are satisfied. Third Exception. State of Madhya Pradesh. and III. The criticism should be in the public interest. II. in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate for any situation in the efficient discharge of the duties of which the public is interested. The conduct of publicist who takes part in politics or other matters concerning the public can be commented on in good faith. and respecting his character. This exception thus has a positive as well as negative aspect. Illustration it is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting Z’s conduct in petitioning government on a public question. The explanation to the exception provides that a justice of the peace or other officer . and no further. The positive aspect is concerned with those situations wherein the exception applies. Fourth Exception. in forming or joining any society which invites the public support. in presiding or attending at such meeting. and the negative aspect is concerned with the limitations to which the exception is subjected to.It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question. so far as his character appears in that conduct. in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public question.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. in as much as the opinion which he expresses respects Z’s character as it appears in Z’s conduct as a witness. Illustrationa) A says.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.“I think Z’s evidence on that trial is so contradictory that he must be stupid or dishonest”. preliminary to a trial in a court of justice.holding an inquiry in open court. Good faith is not an ingredient of the Exception. Manotosan Roy. A is within this exception if he says this is in good faith. but should give a substantially true account of the proceedings. witness or an agent in any such proceeding. The publication need not be true by word. 27 AIR 1953 Cal 503 . which has been decided by a court.27 it was held that it is not necessary under this exception that the proceedings of the court should be published continuously. or c) The character of such person. It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respectinga) The merits of any case. or b) The conduct of any person as a party. civil or criminal. and no further. so far as his character appears in that conduct and no further. In Annanda Prasad v. Fifth Exception. is a court within the meaning of the above exception. is an opinion not founded on Z’s conduct as a witness. singing etc. Z must be a man of impure mind”. speeches made in public. if he says this in good faith. in as much as the opinion which he expresses of . Illustrationsa) A person. Z must be a weak man. who appears on a public stage. or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public. painting.“Z’s book is foolish. submits that book to the judgment of the public. 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.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”. d) A says of a book published by Z. submits that speech to the judgment of the public. submits his acting or singing in the judgment of the public. c) An actor or singer. acting.Merits of public performance This exception deals with literary criticism of public performances submitted to its judgment. b) A person. A is not within this exception. Sixth Exception. It covers criticism of books published on literature. The explanation to the exception provides that a performance may be submitted to the judgment of the public expressly. Z’s book is indecent. who publishes a book. Review of a published work will come under this Exception. A is within this exception. The criticism should be fair and made in good faith. in as much as the opinion which he expresses of Z’s character. who makes a speech in public. art. in as much as the opinion which he expresses of Z’s character is an opinion not founded on Z’s book. . and not by his intention. if good 28 (1907) 1 LR 31 Bom 293.Z respects Z’s character only so far as it appears in Z’s book. 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 no further. The illustration to the Exception gives six instances of censure protected by this exception. 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.Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another.28 it was emphasised that the responsibility of the critic of a public performance. A is not within this exception. Abdul Wadood Ahmed. where he seeks to rely on the responsibility of the critic of a public performance. to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates. either conferred by law or arising out of lawful contract made with another. Seventh Exception. e) But if A says-“I am not surprised that Z’s book is foolish and indecent. for he is a weak man and a libertine”. In Emperor v. This exception provides that it is not defamation of a person having over another any authority. III. Eighth Exception. All that he needs to do is to show that there were reasonable grounds for believing in the 29 AIR 1934 Pat 548 . An accused relying on exception 8 to section 499. V. A banker censuring the cashier of his bank for the conduct of the cashier as such cashier.faith is established. that if the report is made in good faith.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. For instance the following acts of censure fall within the purview of this exceptionI. A parent censuring his or her child in the presence of other children. A school master whose authority is derived from a parent censuring a pupil in the presence of other pupils. A judge censuring the conduct of a witness. II. A master censuring a servant for remissness in service. In Jotinder Nath Mukherji case. Held.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. IPC need not establish the truth of his allegation. A head of a department censuring those who are under him. or of an officer of the court. IV. and VI. the seventh exception is to be applied. to Z’s father.A is within this exception. a child. if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z. he can be said to have acted in good faith. and that he acted on the bona fide belief that the allegations were true. IllustrationIf A in good faith accuses Z before a Magistrate. King. . along with several other residents of the locality. Ninth exception. if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z. or for the public good. viz:30 AIR 1952 Cal 228 (229).allegations.30 it was held that if a person signs a petition to the chairman of Lucknow Development Authority against defective construction of houses. a servant. In Ramesh Roy v. or of any other person. IngredientsThere are two ingredients essential for applying the exception.Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’s 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. to Z’s master. regard should be had for the intellectual capacity of the accused. the person making the accusation. and. or for the public good. The exception protecting the person to whom the communication is made has an interest in protecting. 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. The SC held that the impugned remarks were per se defamatory of the group of persons referred to. attracting the provisions of Exception 3 or Exception 9 of section 499 of the IPC. State of Uttar Pradesh.1. 1960 published from Aligarh. his predilections (preferences) and the surrounding facts. In determining the question of good faith.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. 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. This exception refers to any imputation made in good faith. The communication must be made in good faith. or of any other person. In Sahib Singh Mehra v. The standard of care and caution required varies with the circumstances of each case. The statement must be made for protecting the interest of the maker or recipient of the communication or for the public good. nor was there anything to indicate that the statements were made for the protection of the interest of the person making it. 2. 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 . he deserves a deterrent punishment. in good faith. The apex court said that. 1957. State of Punjab. to one person against another.33 it was held that communication of a caste resolution excommunicating a member of a caste. the appellant was entitled to claim the protection of Exception 9 to section 499 of the IPC. provided that such caution. In Manna v. on July 23. for saving himself and others from the defilement. as the impugned statement was for the public good. the then chief minister of the minister of the state of Punjab. Kairon. Reckless comments are to be avoided.in newspapers should take good care before publishing anything which tends to harm the reputation of a person. the son of Pratap Singh Kairon. Surinder Singh kairon. be intended for 32 33 AIR 1966 SC 97 AIR 1950 ALL 619 . Extracts from which were given wide publicity in a number of local. regional and national papers were highly defamatory of Mr. When one is proved to have made defamatory comment with an ulterior motive and without the least justification. Ram Galam. IPC. by one of the members of the caste to the other member is covered by Exception 9 to section 499. 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. Tenth Exception. IPC.Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good It is not defamation to convey a caution.32 the SC set aside the conviction of the appellant. In Harbhajan Singh v. had complained that the appellant had published from Bombay. who had been prosecuted under section 500. motivated by self interest. whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. In Thiagaraya v. who formed a faction of the class. Held. distributed in the bazaar to all classes of the public. printed papers in which the complainant was described as a “doshi” or sinner.34 the complainant. and they after an interval of six months. 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. 34 1892 ILR 15 Mad 214 .the good of the person to whom it is conveyed. the accused had not under the circumstances acted in good faith. a Brahmin who had been out of caste. Most of the recorded decisions on the tenth exception relate to caste matters. This re-admission was not approved by the accused. and things done at cast meetings. or of some person in whom that person is interested. They do not decide any points of general importance or juristic interest. or with fine. was re-admitted by the executive committee of the caste after performing (accepting punishment) expiatory ceremonies. or for the public good. which signified that he was a person unfit to be associated with. Krishnasami. or with both. Sec-500. Punishment for defamation. Law of Crimes . LL.A.Defamation MADE BY:SAAD SAEED B. Sheshagiri Rao R v.B (H) SEM-IV LIST OF CASESGovind Charyulu v. Robinson AIR 1941 Mad 860(861) (1971) 1 QB 357 . McLeod Mukund Chitnis v. Madhuri Chitnis 1880 ILR 3 ALL 342 AIR 1992 SC 1840 Sunilkhya v. Kanwal Lal case N. Ash (1853) 13 CB 836 Shibo Prasad Pandah (1878) 4 Cal124 Monson v.C Thippanna Chellappen Pillai case .B. Vishwanath K.M Jadwet Radha Govind Dutta v. R. S. No 14 of1889 Wenman v. Patel Maganabhai Horilal v.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.Narottamdas v. Nardeo Shastri AIR 1950 Cal 343 AIR 1965 ALL 439 .R. Saila Kumar Vishan Sarup v. H.S Namjundaiah v. Tussaudas Ltd (1894) 1 QB671 Q.E v.K Singh v. King AIR 1934 Pat 548 AIR 1952 Cal 228(229) Sahib Singh v. Rama Rao v. 6th edn. Ram Galam Thiagaraya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1961) 2 Cr LJ 114 Annanda Prasad v.C (1998) . State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1965 SC 1451 Harbhajan Singh v. A textbook on the I. Abdul Wadood Ahmed AIR 1953 Cal 503 (1907) 1 LR 31 Bom293 Jotinder Nath Mukherji case Ramesh Roy v. Krishnasami AIR 1966 SC 97 AIR 1950 ALL 619 1892 ILR 15 Mad 214 BIBLIOGRAPHY Tort 10th edition by W. State of Punjab Manna v.V. Emperor AIR 1943 Oudh 1 Purushottam v. Manotosan Roy Emperor v.K.H Rogers (1984) Smith and Hogan Criminal law.(1988) K.Gaur.D.P. Gaur. Criminal Law: Cases and Materials (1999) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT For the successful completion of this project. I would like to thank my Crimes teacher Mr. He made the concepts of the topic so clear in my mind that it became very easy for me to work on the topic. .K.D.K. It would not have been possible to complete the project work without his guidance.Sharma.D. Last. but not the least I would like to thank my Parents who stood by me through every thick and thin. Saad Saeed .I would also like to thank my elder sisters and my elder brother who were a constant support throughout the project making.