1986 (10) TMI 332

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plainant was employed as a driver of the bus belonging to the said church. It is alleged that the petitioner denied employment to the respondent on and after 16-12-1984 and thereupon, the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner through a lawyer. In reply thereto, a notice was sent by the petitioner's lawyer in which it is mentioned that the respondent had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 90/- from the amount given to him by the petitioner to purchase diesel. The respondent took serious note of the said reply notice and filed the complaint against the petitioner alleging that the imputation contained in the notice is libellous to him. It is further alleged that the petitioner has spread a scandal in the locality that the respondent had ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... make known or to reveal. That communication which has already been made known to others, or already been revealed to another, does not have the lid of confidentiality over it. In such circumstances, no question of disclosure arises since the communication has already been made known to others. In this case, what is stated in the reply notice by the petitioner's lawyer is evidently what he has disclosed to others, and more particularly, to the respondent's lawyer. Therefore, the said communication cannot continue to have the protection afforded by Section 126 of the Evidence Act. 5. From yet another angle also, the : petitioner is disentitled to claim protection for the said communication mentioned in the reply notice. The privileg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....contained a per se defamatory imputation, a complaint was filed against two accused who were the clients. The first accused contended that he did not give the communication, but his clerk alone gave instructions to the counsel. While dealing with that question, a single Judge of this Court pointed out that since it is not clear from the notice as to who gave the instructions to the counsel, whether it was the first accused or the second accused or both of them together, the counsel cannot be called to justify that fact. The question involved in this case is different and hence, the principle laid down in the said decision is inapplicable to the facts of this case. 7. In P. Rajamma y. R. Chintaiah, a single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High ....