9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of the offence under Section 500 of the I.P.C. based on a private complaint. 2. Whether the communication made by the petitioner to his lawyer falls within Exception No. 9 to Section 499 of the I.P.C. 3. Whether the provisions of Section 126 of the Evidence Act prohibit the disclosure of the communication made by the client to his lawyer. 4. Whether the petitioner's lawyer can be called upon to justify the communication made in the reply notice. 5. Whether the complaint against the petitioner should be quashed. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a Vicar and Principal, was accused of denying employment to the respondent, a former employee, leading to a defamation complaint. The petitioner contended that the Chief Judicial Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 500 of the I.P.C. The dispute arose from the alleged denial of employment and subsequent exchange of notices between the parties, resulting in the complaint against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner argued that the communication made to his lawyer, which formed the basis of the complaint, fell within Exception No. 9 to Section 499 of the I.P.C. The imputation in the reply notice was considered defamatory, shifting the burden of proof onto the accused to demonstrate that the statement fell within the scope of the exception. 3. The crux of the matter revolved around the provisions of Section 126 of the Evidence Act, which prohibit the disclosure of communications between a client and his lawyer. The petitioner's lawyer's reply notice contained the communication allegedly made by the petitioner, raising questions about the applicability of the confidentiality protection under Section 126. 4. The petitioner's counsel argued that the lawyer cannot be called upon to justify the communication in the reply notice due to the prohibition imposed by Section 126 of the Evidence Act. However, the court emphasized that the privilege under Section 126 is conditional and can be waived if the client expressly consents to the disclosure, which can be inferred from the circumstances. 5. The court referred to precedents to support its decision, highlighting that the complaint against the petitioner should not be quashed based on the grounds raised in the petition. The judgment concluded that the case should proceed further, dismissing the Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed by the petitioner.
|
