Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Khamani and ors. Vs. Emperor

Khamani and ors. vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 06, 1925
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/477019

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 500 - Defamation--Degradation in caste--Privilege. - - It is also stated that the statements made were not per se defamatory, and that they were made in good faith and were privileged. The imputation made clearly suggested that Mangli Prasad was not fit to be associated with b...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Khamani and ors.

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1926All306; 92Ind.Cas.584

Excerpt

penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 500 - defamation--degradation in caste--privilege. - - it is also stated that the statements made were not per se defamatory, and that they were made in good faith and were privileged. the imputation made clearly suggested that mangli prasad was not fit to be associated with by reason of his having joined that procession or shaken hands with the sweepers.kanhaiya lal, j.1. the applicants have been convicted of an offence under section 500 of the indian penal code and sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 51 each or in default simple imprisonment for four months. it appears that there was a procession taken out at bareilly in november last in which various classes of people including some sweepers had joined. one of the persons who joined the procession was mangli prasad who belonged to the bhurji caste. the three petitioners have been found to have told different persons of the same caste that if they associated with mangli prasad they would refuse to smoke or drink with them as mangli prasad had become a sweeper, by reason of his having shaken hands and associated with sweepers in that procession. it is argued here that the trial court had no jurisdiction, and that the three accused ought not to have been jointly tried, but none of these points were taken in the courts below. if there were any substance in these objections, they would, undoubtedly, have been urged in the courts below. it is also stated that the statements made were not per se defamatory, and that they were made in good faith and were privileged. the imputation made clearly suggested that mangli prasad was not fit to be associated with by reason of his having joined that procession or shaken hands with the sweepers. it cannot, however, be said that if he had done so, he had thereby become a sweeper, and the effect of the imputation must, undoubtedly, have been to lower his position or character in the estimation of his caste fellows. the imputation would have been privileged, if a panchayat of the caste had been held to discuss the matter, and the decision arrived at the panchayat communicated to the persons interested therein; but it has been found that there was no panchayat held to consider the matter, and no decision formally arrived at which would give it the protection claimed. one of the witnesses deposes that all the three accused joined together.....

Full Judgment

Kanhaiya Lal, J.

1. The applicants have been convicted of an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 51 each or in default simple imprisonment for four months. It appears that there was a procession taken out at Bareilly in November last in which various classes of people including some sweepers had joined. One of the persons who joined the procession was Mangli Prasad who belonged to the Bhurji caste. The three petitioners have been found to have told different persons of the same caste that if they associated with Mangli Prasad they would refuse to smoke or drink with them as Mangli Prasad had become a sweeper, by reason of his having shaken hands and associated with sweepers in that procession. It is argued here that the trial Court had no jurisdiction, and that the three accused ought not to have been jointly tried, but none of these points were taken in the Courts below. If there were any substance in these objections, they would, undoubtedly, have been urged in the Courts below. It is also stated that the statements made were not per se defamatory, and that they were made in good faith and were privileged. The imputation made clearly suggested that Mangli Prasad was not fit to be associated with by reason of his having joined that procession or shaken hands with the sweepers. It cannot, however, be said that if he had done so, he had thereby become a sweeper, and the effect of the imputation must, undoubtedly, have been to lower his position or character in the estimation of his caste fellows. The imputation would have been privileged, if a panchayat of the caste had been held to discuss the matter, and the decision arrived at the panchayat communicated to the persons interested therein; but it has been found that there was no panchayat held to consider the matter, and no decision formally arrived at which would give it the protection claimed. One of the witnesses deposes that all the three accused joined together in warning him that if he associated with Mangli Prasad they would refuse to smoke or drink with him, as Mangli Prasad had become a sweeper. A joint trial under these circumstances is not open to any objection. The application is rejected.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial