1. This criminal revision application calls in question the judgment of a learned Additional City Magistrate, Karachi, delivered on 25-9-1971, whereby he acquitted respondents 2 to 3 of an offence under section 500, P. P. C.
2. The petitioner, Shamshuddin, as well as respondents Nos. 2 and 3 reside in Vilayatabad area No. 1 of Karachi city. On or about 20-4-1968 respondent Nazir Ahmed had made an application against the petitioner to the Chairman, Vilayatabad Union Committee No. 5, alleging that the petitioner, alongwith four other persons, had caught told of him and had given him blows and a beating. It was requested in the said application that action be taken against the petitioner herein and other persons named in the application under section 323/34, P. P. C. The Chairman of the Union Committee, on receipt of the above application, issued summonses to the parties, but further action on the application was dropped, as the parties informed the Chairman that they had compromised the matter and settled their dispute. The petitioner, however, took exception to some of the allegations and imputations made in the said application and accordingly he filed a complaint under section 500, P. P. C. Against respondents 2 and 3 in the Court of a learned A. C. M., Karachi. Respondent No. 3 was involved as he was a member of the Union Commit--tee.
3. Vilayatabad, and he had certified that the contents of the application made by respondent No. 2 were correct and it suggested that an enquiry be conducted.
4. The learned Additional City Magistrate, who tried the case, examined the petitioner and three other witnesses in support of the petitioner's case against respondents 2 and 3, and also examined four witnesses, who were cited by the said respondents in their defence. On the of the evidence led before him, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the application filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner did not attract the application of section 500, P. P. C. As it did not contain any imputations which had harmed his reputation or had lowered the petitioner in the estimation of his friends, colleagues and relations. He accordingly acquitted respondents 2 and 3.
5. Imputations made in respect of any person amount to defamation for the purposes of section 499, P. P. C. Only if such imputations are published and the person publishing the same intends to harm or has reasons to believe that such imputations will harm the reputation of the person in respect of whom the imputations are made and published. There is no evidence to suggest or indicate that the imputations made by respondent No. I in the application to the Chairman of the Union Com-- mittee were made by the respondent with intent to harm the reputation of the petitioner or that the said respondent had reason to believe that the setae would harm the reputation of the petitioner.
6. It' the imputations had Seen per se defamatory, such as to attribute dishonest, improper or immoral conduct to the petitioner, or any other action which plainly would have the tendency to lower him in the estimation of his relations, friends and acquaintances it could have been reasonably presumed that the petitioner either had the intention or at least had the knowledge or reasons to believe that such imputation would harm the reputation of the petitioner, but the imputations are not such as can be considered to be per se defamatory. The Imputations, to which the petitioner has taken exception and which he has referred to in his evidence in Court, are : "(1) That the petitioner had taken Rs. 1,000 from one Muhammad Taqi promising to marry his daughter Amir-un-Nissa to him, which he did not do
(2) that the respondent No. 1 collected Panchayat where the said Muhammad Taqi demanded back the amount of Rs. 1,000 from the petitioner if the petitioner was not prepared to marry his daughter to him ; and
(3) that one Saghir-Ahmed was seen taking the rounds of the house of the petitioner and on being asked as to why he was doing so, he expressed that he was in love with the petitioner---s daughter."
7. The imputation that the petitioner had been paid Rs. 1,000 for the hand of his daughter in marriage is not an imputation which either per se could be considered as defamatory or could have the effect of lowering the petitioner in the estimation of his friends and relations, is it is not un common in certain communities and classes of people to ask for bride---money. Similarly, the other imputations are not such to be per se defamatory. Furthermore, neither the petitioner himself nor any other witness cited by him has stated that as a result of the above imputations, either the reputation of the petitioner had been harmed or that he had bee lowered in the estimation of others. Exception 4 to section 499, P. P. C provides that no imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless the imputation, directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lower the moral or intellectual character of the person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his case or the credit of that person. The bald allegation by the petitioner that the imputations published against him by respondent No. 1 are defamatory cannot be considered to be enough for reaching the conclusion that they are in fact defamatory or that the character of the petitioner has been injured by such imputations or he ha been lowered by such imputations in the estimation of others.
8. It may also be pointed out that whereas the application containing the alleged imputations was made to the Chairman of the Union Committee in April, 1968, the complaint by the petitioner against respondents 1 and 2 was filed in April, 1970, that is two years later. If the character of the petitioner had been injured or he had been lowered in the estimation of others, he would not have waited two long years before deciding to proceed against respondents 1 and 2.
9. The imputations, as already pointed out, were contained in an application made to the Chairman of the Union Committee, with the request that action be taken against the petitioner and his companions for an offence under section 323/34, P. P. C. Since the Chairman was the person to whom such applications are required to be made under the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961, he undoubtedly is a person who had lawful authority, over the petitioner with respect to the accusation of assault and beating. The other imputations regarding the taking of money, etc., form merely the background or, suggest the motive for the incident which was brought to the notice of the Chairman for his action under the conciliation Courts Ordinance. There is no evidence to suggest thro respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were actuated by malice or that there way stated of good faith in their making the sari application, Although the petitioner himself bad stated that the said application was dismissed by the Chairman because the respondent did not attend the hearing pursue the application, he stands contradicted by Chairman Muhammad Siaf anti also by P. W.
10. Muhammad Ibrahim, the brother-in-law of the petitioner, who have stated that the incident which formed the subject-matter of the application to the Chairman had ended in a compromise. In view of those circumstances, the application made by respondent No. 1 and bearing the endorsement of respondent No. 2, who was then a member of the Union Committee concerned, would be protected under the 8th exception to section 499, P. P. C.
THE END