PROJECT

ON

Drafting, pleading and conveyancing

NOTICE UNDER SECTION 80 CPC

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT OF DEFAMATION

SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:

Ms. Shivani Gupta

MANASVI BHATIA
162/17
B.COM LLB (H)
 Introduction

Drafting is writing any legal document, it can be pleading for civil court or Complaint to a
Criminal court or petitioning before High Court or drafting a Will.

The provisions of Advocates Act, 1961 confers a monopoly right of pleading and practising law
only on enrolled or registered Advocates. Section 30 of the Advocates Act confers such a right to
practice on a ‘pleader’ and/or ‘Advocate’ after he gets himself enrolled as such. 

NOTICE UNDER SECTION 80 CPC

Generally, in suits between individuals and individuals notice to defendants by plaintiff before
institution of suit is not required to be given. However, section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code
(CPC) says that before institution of a suit against the government or against any public officer, in
respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, a 2 month
notice is necessary.

Nature of Section 80:

Section 80 contains a rule of procedure and makes it mandatory to serve a notice before
institution of a suit against the Government or against a public officer.

Thus, this section describes two types of cases:

1. Suit against the Government and

2. Suit against public officers in respect of acts done or purporting to be done by such
public officers in their official capacity.

In State of Maharashtra v. Chander Kant 1 it was observed that notice must be given in all
cases regarding the first class of cases. However, regarding  second class cases, notice is
necessary  only where the suit is in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public
officer in the discharge of his duty, and not otherwise.

In State of Madras v. Chitturi   Venkata Durga Parasadrao 2 it was observed that the
expression act purporting to be done according to one interpretation which is strictly
grammatical, takes in part acts as well as future acts. The other interpretation based upon an
idiomatic interpretation of the language is that it would be restricted to part acts.

Object of the notice:

Underlying object of section 80 is to provide an opportunity to the Government or public officer
to consider the legal position and to settle the claim forwarded by the prospective plaintiff if it
appears to be just and proper. It is expected from the government unlike private parties to
consider the matter objectively and make an appropriate decision in two months after obtaining
proper legal advice. It saves public money and time and is in public interest.

The legislative intent behind this provision is that public money not be wasted for unnecessary
litigation. The section guides the Government or a public officer to negotiate just claims and to
settle them if well‐founded without adopting an unreasonable attitude by inflicting wasteful
expenditure on public exchequer.

Opinion of the Law Commission:

In its 14th report, Law Commission of India noted that section 80 has worked hardship in a large
number of cases where immediate relief was needed. In large number of cases, the Government
or the public officer made no use of opportunity afforded by the section; Government and public
officers utilised the provision as a technical defence and notice remained unanswered.

In 27th report the commission again considered the question and observed that there was no
parallel provision in any other country governed by the Anglo-Saxon system of law. It further
said that in democratic country like ours there should ordinarily be no distinction as envisaged by
section 80 between the citizen and the State.

Essential Requirements

To constitute notices under section 80 CPC, the following things must be adhered to:

   I . name, description, and place of residence of the person giving notice;

  II. a statement of the cause of action; and

  III. the relief claimed by him.

  IV. Summary of the legal basis for the relief claimed

In the case of State of A.P. v. Gundugola Venkata[ii], certain requirements were laid down
which need to be looked upon by the Court to check the whether the notice contains essential
requirements or not , which are as follows:
 1. Whether the details relating to name, description, and residence of the plaintiff have been
given in such a manner to provide the authority the identification of the person giving the
notice?

2. Whether the cause of action and the relief claimed by the plaintiff has been put out in the
notice as per the essential particulars?

3. If the mode of delivery of written notice has been by actual delivery or left at the office of
the appropriate authority mentioned in the section? and

4. Whether the suit has been instituted after the expiration of two months after the service of
notice and a statement stating that the notice has been so delivered or left is contained in
the plaint?

Conclusion

There is no doubt that the provision of serving notice to the government or public officer for any
act done purportedly to be done by him in his official capacity before the institution of the suit
against them, is a very useful step for both the plaintiff and the authorities. However, the practice
of avoiding this notice has now become a ritual for these authorities, which makes the very
existence of this provision questionable. Nevertheless, it is advisable to take help from an
advocate for the drafting of such notice to be well written with legal intricacies

PROPOSITION

On or about 12 am, the defendant was the Medical Superintendent of Shree Leeladhar Hospital .
and was also the Head of the Deptt. of Surgery of the said hospital. Shri Venkata was admitted to
the said Shree leeladhar Hospital on 15 June 2020 for surgical operation for removal of stones in
the kidneys under the defendant’s care and supervision and 16 th June, 2020 was fixed the date of
operation of the said Shri Venkata. When the said Shri Venkata was being operated, the
defendant was personally present in the operation theatre and doing the operation with the
assistance of junior doctors. After removing the stones, he, while undertaking stitching, had
negligently, carelessly and willfully left a big piece of cotton inside the body, due to which Shri
Venkatesh started to complain severe pain in the kidneys for which the defendant had prescribed
some antibiotics on various visits.
 When Shri Venkatesh client could not get treatment for his pain, he went to Paras Hospital,
Nayagaon and consulted Dr. Rama of Nursing Home who opined that there is some foreign
element around the kidney, for which he was operated on 20 th June 2020 in Nursing Home and a
piece of cotton was removed from inside the body and after the removal of the cotton, he had got
relief from pain.

From: Mr. A.K. Venkata

To: Medical Superintendent

Shree Leeladhar Hospital

Dear sir,

Under instructions and on behalf of my client Shri Venkata resident of House no. 12, Chennai, I
hereby give you notice as follows:

1. On or about 12 am you were the Medical Superintendent of Shree Leeladhar Hospital . and you
were also the Head of the Deptt. of Surgery of the said hospital.

2. Shri Venkata was admitted to the said Shree leeladhar Hospital on 15 June 2020 for surgical
operation for removal of stones in the kidneys under your care and supervision and 16 th June,
2020 was fixed the date of operation of the said Shri Venkata.

3. When the said Shri Venkata was being operated, you were personally present in the operation
theatre and doing the operation with the assistance of junior doctors.

4. After removing the stones, you, while undertaking stitching, had negligently, carelessly and
willfully left a big piece of cotton inside the body, due to which my client started to complain
severe pain in the kidneys for which you had prescribed some antibiotics on various visits.

5. When my client could not get treatment for his pain, he went to Paras Hospital, Nayagaon and
consulted Dr. Rama of Nursing Home who opined that there is some foreign element around the
kidney, for which my client was operated on 20 th June 2020 in Nursing Home and a piece of
cotton was removed from inside the body and after the removal of the cotton, my client had got
relief from pain.

6. My client Shri Venkata had to undergo physical and mental suffering for the negligence,
carelessness and mistake committed by you and he had to spend lot of money for treatment of
pain, which was caused due to leaving the piece of cotton inside the body by you, while
undertaking operation for removal of stones in the kidney.

7. The said client therefore demands from you Rs3,00,000 as damages for physical and mental
suffering, Rs.1,00,000 as expenses incurred by him in the operation and treatment, Rs 50,000 as
expenses incurred by him in transport, hotel, etc. totalling Rs.4,50,000 and I hereby give you
notice that if the said amount is not paid, the said client will, on the expiry of two months from
the date of service of this notice, file a suit against you for the recovery of Rs4,50,000 as damages
and expenses incurred by him, at your entire risk as to cost and consequences.
 Yours faithfully,

…………………..

Advocate

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT: Defamation

Introduction

Defamation as the meaning of the word suggests is an injury to the reputation of

a person resulting from a statement which is false. A man’s reputation is treated
as his property and if any person poses damage to property he is liable under the
law, similarly, a person injuring the reputation of a person is also liable under the
law. Defamation is defined in section 499 of Indian Penal Code 1860 and section
500 provides that a person committing an offense under this section is liable with
simple imprisonment for a term of 2 years or fine or with both.

Any person who by spoken or written words, signs or visible gestures creates or
publishes any imputation on any person with an intention to harm the reputation of
that person. The person making such imputation should have the knowledge or a
reason to believe that such imputation will ruin the reputation of the person.
[Section 499]

Publication

For a person to be sued for defamation, it is required that the publication of the
words he spoke or wrote must have happened.

It means that damage to the reputation of the person happens when the defamatory
words have reached to any third person. Publication means that the third person
has read, heard or seen the written, spoken, gestured or pictured defamatory words

Reputation

To sue any person it is necessary to establish that real damage or harm has
occurred to the reputation of the person. Only speaking or writing the words,
picturing or gesturing does not amount to defamation until the reputation of the
person has been harmed
 Exceptions of  defamation

The exceptions to an action for defamation are:

1. Imputation of truth for public good

2. Public Conduct of public servants

3. Public conduct of public men other than public servants

4. Comment on cases and conduct of witnesses and others concerned

5. Merits of decisions and judicial proceedings

6. Merits of public performances, literary criticisms etc.

7. Censure in good faith by one in authority

8. Complaint in authority

9. Imputation for protection of interest

10. Caution in good faith

11. Privilege

PROPOSITION

Payag Ganpati is a joint convener of Haryana Vibhag Sahkari Sangh and as such is held
in the highest esteem of the general peasantry class of Shivalik Region of Panchkula. He
contested the election of Haryana State Legislative Assembly on Bhartiya Lok Dal ticket
in the year 2019 from Panchkula Constituency and won the election and as such is known
to the public at large, particularly, peasantry class of the district. There is a political
rivalry between Payag Ganpati and Rama Singh for the last about 10 years. He is also a
prospective candidate from Bhartiya Lok Dal Party from Panchkula City constituency and
is likely to contest the Haryana Legislative Assembly election in 2024. Rama Singh made
the false imputation about Mr. Payag. Mr. Rama got the defamatory hand bills published
on 20th January 2020 under his signature from S.K. Printing Press, Industrial Area,
Panchkula. The hand bills contained imputation showing the complainant as “robberer”
“brothel keeper” and “smuggler” Rama Singh got them published, circulated and pasted
on the walls of the houses of Panchkula city. Draft a complaint on behalf of Payag
Ganpati.

IN THE COURT OFJUICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, PANCHKULA

Cri Case No. 1234 of 2020

Payag Ganpati

House No.8, 1st floor,Sector 14

Panchkula

Haryana

Versus

Rama Singh

House no. 80, Sector 20

Chandigarh
 Offences under section 500, 501 I.P.C.

May it please your worship,

1. The above named complaint states as under that the complainant is a

respectable resident of House no. 8, Sector 14, Panchkula and is respected in
the city for his social work. The complainant is also an active member of
Bhartiya Lok Dal.

2. That the accused, a transporter, having a fleet of trucks, is a resident of House

no. 80, Sector 20, Chandigarh and has affiliations with the leader of Pradesh
congress party.

3. That the complainant is a joint convener of Haryana Vibhag Sahkari Sangh and
as such is held in the highest esteem of the general peasantry class of Shivalik
Region of Panchkula.

4. That the complainant contested the election of Haryana State Legislative

Assembly on Bhartiya Lok Dal ticket in the year 2019 from Panchkula
Constiyuency and won the election and as such is known to the public at large,
particularly, peasantry class of the district.

5. That there is a political rivalry between the complainant and the accused for
the last about 10 years.

6. That the complainant is also a prospective candidate from Bhartiya Lok Dal
Party from Panchkula City constituency and is likely to contest the Haryana
Legislative Assembly election in 2024.

7. That with a view to defame, malign and lower down the image of complainant
in the eyes of Bhartiya Lok Dal workers and the public at large, the accused
intentionally made the false imputation to harm the reputation of the
complainant.
8. That the accused got the defamatory hand bills published on 20 th January 2020
under his signature from S.K. Printing Press, Industrial Area, Panchkula. The
hand bills contained imputation showing the complainant as “robberer”
”brothel keeper” and “smuggler”, knowing fully well that these imputations
are complainant’s character assassination and are false, shall definitely lower
the public image of the complainant. The Accused got them intentionally
published, circulated and pasted on the walls of the houses of Panchkula city
with a view to defame, indignify and discredit the complainant.

9. That the impuations are false and intentional and actually lower down the
image and character of the complainant in the public at large and party
workers, in particular.

10. That in the aforesaid circumstances, the accused has committed the offence of
defamation punishable under Section 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code.

11. That the complainant prays that the honourable court may be please to issue
necessary process against the accused so that he may dealt with according to
law. The complainant craves leave of the court to produce documents and
witnesses when required.

Solemnly affirmed as aforesaid.

Dated this 20th the day of August, 2020 at Panchkula.

Complaint drawn by SD/-

S/d- Payag Ganpati

Shreemati Meenakshi

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. https://www.legalbites.in/defamation-meaning-explanation-and-exception/
accessed on 10TH June, 2021.
2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/defamation-section-499-to-502-of-ipc/ accessed on 10th
june, 2021.
3. Chaturvedi A.N., Principles and forms of Pleadings, Drafting and Conveyancing
with Advocacy and Professional Ethics, Allahabad Law Agency, Faridabad.
4. https://advocatetanmoy.com/2019/03/08/drafting-pleading-conveyancing-and-
preparation-of-deeds/ accessed on 11th June,2021.