Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Das on 3 June, 2024
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
Office Notes,
reports, orders
SL. or proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
03.06.2024 CRLR No. 161 of 2013
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. None appears for the appellant as well as for the respondent No. 1. Mr. Saurabh Pandey, learned Brief Holder is present for the State/respondent No. 2
2. The present Revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.03.2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Almora in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2011, arising out of the judgment and order dated 08.08.2011, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora in Criminal Case No. 205 of 2010, Sunil Singh Vs. Yeshu Jiwan Das, whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC.
3. Though this is not an admitted Revision and despite the fact that there is no representation from the revisionist repeatedly, it appears that the revisionist is not interested to pursue the present Revision. Even otherwise, I perused the judgment passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 205 of 2010 as well as the judgment rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Almora dated 22.03.2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2011.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/accused lodged a First Information Report on 02.11.2008 at P.S. Kotwali, Bareilly Sadar for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of IPC and on the basis of the said FIR, he published a news in a daily newspaper "Amar Ujala" on 07.11.2008 and the main heading of the said newspaper was **eSFkksfMLV ppZ dh lEifRr ij utj** eq[; gsfMax ds uhps *vYeksM+k ds nRifRr ds f[kykQ cjsyh esa eqdnek*.
5. On said publication, the complaint was filed by the present applicant in which the statements were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 of CrPC and the respondent/accused was summoned. The statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 251 of CrPC wherein he has denied all the allegations.
6. After examining the evidence adduced by the parties, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora, comes to the conclusion that there are no sufficient evidence against the accused and the charges are not proved under Section 500 of IPC, against which the Appeal was also preferred and the same was also dismissed.
7. I perused both the judgments and I do not find any illegality in the orders under challenge. Even otherwise, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Almora, in the order dated 22.03.2013, after taking into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar Sharma Vs. Assam, 1999 (3) ALR 453 (SC), wherein it has been held that the statement of facts in newspaper are merely here say and the presumption of genuineness cannot be treated as proof of facts. The Additional Sessions Judge, Almora rightly dismissed the Appeal.
8. Now, the present Revision has been preferred by the revisionist and submits that in the daily newspaper "Amar Ujala", which was published on 07.11.2008, the statement of respondent/accused was also published, which clearly made of the accused under Section 500 of IPC and the statements as made in the newspaper are not here say and treated to be a proof of facts. Even otherwise, that aspect has been dealt with by the Appellate Court in its judgment after relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present Criminal Revision and the same is hereby dismissed.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 03.06.2024 Mahinder/