Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Vedurumudi Rama Rao vs Chennuri Venkat Rao And Anr. on 16 June, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(2)ALD(CRI)192, 1997CRILJ3851, 1997(2)LS220
ORDER
1. By this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioner V. Rama Rao is challenging the proceedings initiated against him under Section 500, I.P.C. by the 1st respondent herein in C.C. No. 114/92 on the file of the III Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
2. The 1st respondent, Chennuri Venkat Rao, filed a private complaint in C.C. No. 114/92 alleging that he hails from a respectable family at Srikakulam, that he is doing business in transport, that he developed good rapport with different sections of society including financial institutions, that he obtained loan facilities form Gajuwaka branch of Andhra Bank, that the loan amounts obtained by him were properly utilised for the purpose for which they were granted to the knowledge of all concerned in the bank including the petitioner/accused, who was working as Regional Manager Andhra Bank, Visakhapatnam at that time. It is further alleged in the complaint that the accused issued the circular dated 21-8-1990 to all the branches of Andhra Bank, Visakhapatnam region under his signature to the effect that the complainant cheated Gajuwaka branch of Andhra Bank to a tune of Rs. five lakhs under four accounts and that the chances of recovery from him are bleak and that the complainant attempted to cheat Dwarkanagar, Maharanipet and Port branches of Andhra Bank and that a reading of the said Circular give an impression as if the complainant is a part and privy of team of gangsters and the said allegations amount to defamatory and the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 500, I.P.C.
3. In the present application, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Vigilance Department, Central Office, Hyderabad, in its letter dated 20-7-1990 addressed to the Zonal Office Andhra Bank, Visakhapatnam instructed the Zonal Office to issue a confidential Circular to the local branches in Visakhapatnam informing the prominent activities of four named persons including the complainant, that in pursuance of the said Circular, the Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam by its letter dated 26-7-1990 addressed to the Regional Office, Visakhapatnam instructed the Regional Manager i.e. the petitioner herein to issue instructions to all the branches under his jurisdiction to be very careful and vigilant in dealing with the above named persons including the complainant by issuing a confidential circular. In pursuance of the said instructions, the petitioner herein who was working as Regional Manager at that time issued the Confidential Circular, dated 21-8-1990, directing all the Managers of Andhra Bank in the Region to be very careful and vigilant in dealing with the persons named in that circular and this confidential letter was issued in his capacity as the Regional Manager and as per the instructions of the Central Office and Zonal Office to alert the Managers of Andhra Bank to safeguard the interest of the Bank. It is also averred in the petition that even all the allegations in the complaint are taken as true, still the offence under Section 500, I.P.C. is not made out in asmuch as exceptions 9 and 10 are squarely attracted.
4. Before proceeding with the examination of the ingredients of the relevant provisions of law, the Circular dated 21-8-1990 issued by the petitioner and which is not in dispute, is extracted as follows :
"ANDHRA BANK.
Regional Office. Visakhapatnam.
Confidential.
No. 34.
685/21/350.
Dt/- 21-8-1990.
For the Personal Attention of the Manager.
To All the Branches of the Region.
Ref : Vigilance - Gang of Cheaters operating in Visakhapatnam.
.......................
As per instructions of Vigilance Department, Central Office, Hyderabad, we wish to bring to your notice that a gang of three cheaters, viz.
(1) Mr. K. Chitra Prasad alias Mr. Anjaneya Vara Prasad, an Engineer in the Services of State Government (dismissed) (2) Mr. K. P. V. Suryanarayana, a Merchant hailing from AKP mainly dealing in Electrical and Electronic goods.
(3) Mr. A. Venkata Rao, formerly Officer of our branch dismissed from service while working as Manager, Dwarakanagar Branch, Visakhapatnam. Our funds to the tune of 3.25 lakhs in four accounts are stuck up with the chances of recovery being remote.
One Mr. Chennuri Venkata Rao successfully cheated our Gazuwaka Branch to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs in four accounts with the chances of recovery being bleak. The same borrower made attempt to cheat our Dwarakanagar, Maharanipet and Port Branches at Visakhapatnam but were not successful.
Apart from our Bank, those gangsters have also successfully cheated Bank of Baroda, Visakhapatnam to an extent of Rs. 5 lakhs and SBI including Estate Branch, Visakhapatnam and SBH Anakapalli to an extent of Rs. 17 lakhs similarly Syndicate Bank, Visakhapatnam to an extent of Rs. 3.85 lakhs.
To avoid any unforeseen difficulties in future we instruct you to be very careful and vigilant in dealing with the above mentioned three persons. Please acknowledge receipt.
Sd/-
V. Ram Rao Regional Manager."
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submits that this Circular was issued by the petitioner in his official capacity as Regional Manager, in obedience to the directions of the Central and Zonal Offices by repeating what he was asked to communicate to the branch Managers that no malice can be attributed to the petitioner and that it has been done in good faith and for the public good and hence, exception 9 to Section 499, I.P.C. is squarely applicable and as such, the offence under Section 500. I.P.C. is not made out and the proceedings are liable to quashed.
6. "In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. pointed out "certain categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings should be exercised." It is submitted that the instant case falls under the category 6 as laid down by the Supreme Court and exception 9 to Section 499, I.P.C. can be made applicable without any further enquiry whatsoever and therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Section 499, I.P.C. defines defamation and Section 500, I.P.C. prescribes the punishment. Section 499, I.P.C. lays down thus :
"Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible representation or makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person."
Then there are four explanations. Then there are 10 exceptions which do not come under defamation. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on 9th exception which reads thus :
"9th exception :- Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or others interest. - It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation has to be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good."
This exception relates to private communications which a person makes, in good faith, for the protection of his own interest, or of any other person, or for the public good. Admittedly, the petitioner-accused herein issued the said Circular only on the instructions from the Central and Zonal offices by repeating what he was asked to communicate to his Branch Managers in the region. The learned counsel for the petitioner also made available the letters issued by the Central and Zonal Offices directing the Regional Managers to issue the said Circular. Therefore, there is nothing on record to hold that the petitioner-accused had issued the said Circular with any malice against this complainant or to cause any damage to his reputation as such. He issued the said Circular at the instance of the Central and Zonal Office. More over, it is a confidential Circular not meant for the public at large, but to his Branch Managers to be cautious while dealing with the complainant and others mentioned in that Circular in their business transactions. More over, the said Circular had emanated after due investigation done by the Vigilance Department of the Central Office of Andhara Bank. There cannot be any doubt that such a Circular was issued only in good faith and also for the public good and to safeguard the interest of the public at large. In a case of this type, the truth of the imputations made against the complainant need not be proved by an accused person claiming the privilege under exception 9. Therefore, even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken to be true, the offence under Section 500, I.P.C. is not made out as the exception No. 9 is squarely applicable to the facts in this case and as laid down in "State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335 : (1992 Cri LJ 527 quoted supra, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
7. For the reasons stated above, the proceedings in C.C. No. 114/92 on the file of the Ill Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam are quashed and the petition is allowed.
8. Petition allowed.