Delhi District Court
Aditya Sarda vs Arjun Singh on 11 January, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. VIDHI GUPTA ANAND,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CT Case No.: 34/2019
PS: Parliament Street
Aditya Sarda Vs. Arjun Singh
Complaint Case No. : 34/2019
CNR No. : DLCT120002332019
Date of institution of the : 18.03.2011
case
Name of Complainant : Aditya Sarda
F-25A, Hauz Khas
Enclave, New Delhi
Name and address of : Arjun Singh
Accused 11, East Ghosh Para Road
P.S. Jagatdal
Dist. North 24, Parganas
West Bengal
Complaint filed under : 200 Cr.P.C.
Section
Offence complained of : 499/500 IPC
Final Order Acquitted
Date of Order : 11.01.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Abraham Lincoln had said, 'Character is like a tree and reputation like a shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.' It simply implies that Reputation of a person is what others think of a person. Reputation is what not one thinks of himself, but what others estimate him to be.
The concept of Reputation and its protection is what Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 1 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh forms the foundation of this case. This is a case where Complainant Aditya Sarda has approached this Court with a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. alleging that he has been defamed by the Accused namely Arjun Singh (Presently, Member of Parliament) by writing certain letters and thus, committing offence of defamation under Section 499 and 500 IPC.
Case brought forward by the Complainant
2. Succinctly put, the case brought forward by the Complainant is as follows:
2.1 Complainant submits that he is a respectable citizen of India, a person of high status and is also a Director of various Companies, some of which include:
i. Axis Overseas Ltd.
ii. Axis Nirman and Industries Ltd.
iii. Axis Power Generation Pvt. Ltd.
iv. Axis Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
2.2 Further, it is stated that the present complaint is being filed against Accused Arjun Singh, who with his continuous stream of false and malicious information against the Complainant in his written letters has sought to malign and harm the Complainant's reputation and standing in the society, thereby humiliating and defaming the Complainant. Allegedly, these letters have been purposely addressed by Accused to various Banks, Government authorities, Ministers, Government officials, CBI etc. to spread patently false and malicious information about the Complainant knowing them to be false with intent to cause harm to the Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 2 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh reputation of the Complainant.
2.3 Complainant has further alleged that the Accused had written the said letters at the instance of rivals/family relations (uncle Sh. Ghanshyam Sarda) of the Complainant who are interested in spreading malicious information implicating the Complainant and his immediate family.
2.4 There are several letters relied upon by the Complainant in support of his case which have been reproduced in the following paragraphs for easy reference.
Allegedly, Accused addressed a letter dated 15.01.2010 to:
i. The Hon'ble Union Commerce Minister ii. The Commerce Secretary iii. The Director General, Directorate of Supplies and Disposals iv. The Additional Director General, Directorate of Supplies & Disposals v. The Additional Director General, Directorate of Quality Assurance and vi. CBI, to the following effect:
"Ref: Forging of Consignment Receipt Certificate Re: DGS&D Kolkata Office dealing with J. K. Jute Mills, Kanpur I have come to learn from the office of DGS&D, Kolkata that J.K. Jute Mill is controlled by Mr. Govind Kumar Sarda, Mr. Aditya Kumar Sarda and Mr. Amit Sarda, who have made forged documents Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 3 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh for supply of Gunny Bags to various State agencies viz. Punsup, Pungrain, PSWC, HAFED, HSWC, MARFED, etc. On preliminary enquiry I have come to learn that the Truck numbers shown in the consignment notes do not exist and the Gunny Bags have not even moved to the destination. There is no entry in any of the check post of U.P., Punjab and Haryana showing the movement of Trucks. The allegation is for defalcation of over Rs.50.00 crores. The allegations are of a various serious nature and I recommend that a Central Agency like Central Bureau of Investigation should be involved into like this kind of investigation which are nothing but a fraud on the Government exchequer. Looking at the serious nature of fraud I am also marking a copy of my letter to Central Bureau of Investigation to kindly instruct the department to take necessary action. Please let me know about the investigation."
It is stated by the Complainant that the words used in the aforesaid letter clearly defame him and all the allegations are false and malicious as Complainant is not even a shareholder or director in J.K. Jute Mills. Complainant further states that he became aware of this letter when he received a copy along with the summons filed in the Suit filed by J.K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd.
2.5 It is further alleged that thereafter, Accused sent a letter dated 21.01.2010 to the Union Finance Minister wherein further false and malicious information was published. The relevant extract of the said letter is reproduced below:
"Reg.: Loans and Advances by (A) Axis Overseas Limited from (i) State Bank of India, Ballygunge Commercial Branch (ii) Allahabad Bank, Dalhousie Branch, (B) S.B. Pigments Limited from Dena Bank, Park Street Branch It has been put to my notice that Mr. Govind Kumar Sarda, Mr. Aditya Kumar Sarda and Mr. Amit Sarda, have taken several loans from different Banks in a fraudulent manner in the fake companies promoted Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 4 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh by them either in their own name or through their employees. The details as informed to me are following:
LOAN TAKEN FROM
1. AXIS OVERSEAS LIMITED 1A, SHAKESPEARE SARANI, 2ND FLOOR, KOLKATTA-700017
2. STATE BANK OF INDIA, BALLYGUNGE COMMERCIAL BRANCH (A) Directors-
(i) Mr. Aditya Kumar Sarda - elder son of Mr. Govind Kumar Sarda
(ii) Mr. Dinesh Mohan Tiwari - employee
(iii) Mr. Rajesh Sharma - employee State Bank of India, Ballygunge Commercial Branch, has sanctioned a term loan of Rs.1.35 crores against the mortgage of 14 flats, comprising a total area of 14,000 sq.ft. situated at Rani Rashmoni Road. But in fact the consideration paid for purchase of these flats by way of cheques were all returned unpaid and no consideration was paid to the owners of the flats. The flats owned by M/s Castrol Project Pvt. Limited, P-4, New Howrah Bridge Approach Road, Kolkata-700001, represented by its Director Mr. Manik Sethia, Phone 09830905079 has sold these flats who has confirmed the fraudulent act of Mr. Govind Kumar Sarda. Therefore, the flats mortgaged to the Bank have defective title and as such the mortgage is also defective. Since the title is defective therefore, Bank cannot recover its dues in case of default. It is not understood how the Bank could advance such huge amount of Rs.1.35 crores unless there are some connivance between some official of the Bank with the borrower, without verifying that the title is clear and the consideration made for the title deed have actually been passed on to the Seller as on the date of sanction of loan.Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 5 of 45
Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh Being a Legislative Member of Assembly, it is my earnest duty to protect the public interest when it came to my notice. It felt it is my duty to bring to your kind notice with a request to post an enquiry into the above loans released by the Banks in order to protect the public money and order investigation if found unauthorized or fraudulent."
It is alleged that the Accused sent copies of the above mentioned letter to (1) Shri Ashok Chawla, Finance Secretary, Govt. of India, New Delhi (2) Shri D. L. Rawal, Chairman & Managing Director, Dena Bank, Mumbai (3) Shri Bhasker Sen, Executive Director, Dena Bank, Mumbai (4) The Executive Director, Allahabad Bank, Kolkata (5) The General Manager - Credit, Allahabad Bank, Kolkata (6) Shri Ramesh Singh Bora, General Manager (I & V and Chief Vigilance Officer), Dena Bank, Mumbai (7) The General Manager, Vigilance, Allahabad Bank, Kolkata.
Further, it is claimed that the Accused had also gone on to accuse the Complainant of being involved in cash credit facility of Rs.12 crores being availed of by the same company from Allahabad Bank against book debt and stocks and other current assets of the company when the company is not maintaining stock or book debts or other current assets against sum withdrawn. Complainant further submits that Accused has alleged that the book debts shown in the company's Book are fictitious and names are of companies belonging to the family members. As per the Complainant, Accused has further alleged that the godown belongs to the Baranagore Jute Factory PLC (being managed by the Complainant and his relatives) and the Complainant and his relatives have created a fictitious lease Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 6 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh document.
As per the Complainant, Accused also said that there was default regarding a guarantee for a loan of Oriental Bank of Commerce and the Complainant and his relatives had connived with bank officials for raising huge loans. Complainant further submits that Accused has alleged that the Complainant along with others had started approaching new bank in name of new companies for cheating crores and crores of public money.
Further, it is the case of the Complainant that the Accused had also imputed upon him fraud involving S. B. Pigments Ltd. and Dena Bank.
Complainant submits that the contents of the above letter are false to the knowledge of the Accused. He further states that he is a businessman and often is required to meet government officials and bank officers and the aforesaid letter has affected his reputation.
2.6 Allegedly, on 05.02.2010, Accused further sent a letter to the (1) The Union Commerce Minister, (2) The Chief Minister of U.P. and to (3) Commerce Secretary, New Delhi and made allegations in following terms:
"RE: (i) DGS&D, DGQA- Food & Civil Supplies Dept. Govt. of U.P.
(ii) Forgery and Fraud at J.K. Jute Mills, Kanpur in collusion with State Officials I had earlier written to you vide my letter dated 15.01.2010 on the information I have received about some fraud being enacted by Mr. Govind Kumar Sarda, Mr. Aditya Kumar Sarda and Mr. Amit Sarda with some senior officials of DGQA and DGS&D at J. K. Jute Mills, Kanpur.Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 7 of 45
Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh I have been handed over some papers viz. consignee receipt and certificate book of DGS&D which shows that consignment of Jute Bags have been shipped by Thelas through some Caravan Carriers at the following address: Consignee Full address, Sr. Marketing Inspector, Kanpur, Food & Civil Supplies Department, U.P. District Kanpur, Railway Station Kanpur, Central Goods Shed.
One bale of Jute bags weighs about 340 kgs and to keep that bag, a space of 5' X 4' will be required. The total weight therefore loaded in one Thela of 10 bales - 340 will become 3.40 MT. It is beyond my knowledge that how one Thela can take the weight of 10 bales be it pulled by man or animal. Even small size van or mini truck will find it difficult to load 3.40 MT of Jute Bags because of size and dimension.
I have been further informed that the Caravan Carrier does not have its infrastructure at all. Inspite of my earlier letter, it is something like Bihar and Jharkhand where Buffaloes were carried by scooter. It is also surprising that DDG, Kolkata Office also passed the CRC for payment. I have further been informed that the same group of people are trying to do some mischief at a Company called Loomtex Engineering Pvt. Ltd. at DGS&D. I request you to kindly investigate to unearth this scam."
Copies of the letter were also sent to (1) The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (2) The Director General, Directorate of Supplies and Disposals, New Delhi (3) The Additional Director General, Directorate of Supplies & Disposals, New Delhi (4) The Additional Director General, Directorate of Quality Assurance, New Delhi (5) Deputy Director General, Directorate of Supplies and Disposals, Kolkata (6) Chief Controller of Accounts, Deptt. Of Commerce (Supply Divison), New Delhi (7) Director, Directorate of Supplies and Disposals, Kolkata.
Accused alleged fraud at the hands of the Complainant Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 8 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh along with others in collusion with officials of DGQA and DGS&D at J. K. Jute Mills, Kanpur. Accused has further stated that the accusations made by the Complainant vide the above mentioned letter are false and bogus and the Complainant is neither a shareholder nor a Director in J.K. Jute Mills or M/s Loomtex Engineering Pvt. Ltd. The Complainant has specifically stated that he became aware of the letter when he received a copy along with the summons filed in the Suit filed by J. K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd.
2.7 It is further alleged that Accused thereafter wrote another letter dated 23.02.2010 to the Governor, Reserve Bank of India and Chairman & Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank wherein he alleged to the following effect:
"Sub: Financing of property No. 145, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkatta by Indian Overseas Bank Limited, Jawaharlal Nehru Road Branch, owned by (1) M/s Santosh Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (2) Delight Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. (3) Pennar Trading Pvt. Limited (4) Tirupati Niryat Pvt. Ltd.
I have an information that M/s Indian Overseas Bank is being duped by Mr. Govind Kumar Sarda, Mr. Aditya Kumar Sarda and Mr. Amit Kumar sarda, who are the defaulters of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kolkata Region and Hyderabad Region and involved into many criminal cases from Gun running racket to supply of spurious medical kits (famous Monozyme India Limited) and playing with the lives of thousands of people.
I have further information that though the officer of the Bank were informed by an Advocate letter but has further financed the above property and have recently taken over the above accounts from State Bank of India. As a public servant, it is my duty to inform the relevant authority, but I find that Bank had ignored the information and did not check with Oriental Bank of Commerce, and also have further financed the same group.Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 9 of 45
Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh It is a matter of deep regret and great surprise that how Indian Overseas Bank is indulging into with people with criminal backgrounds without checking the financial state of the concerned borrowers. It is my sincere requested that Reserve Bank of India should take immediate steps to inform all the Banks to get alert from the above names so that these kinds of people are not able to fool the banks and public money can be saved from the hands of criminals. I request you to kindly check the details and take immediate action including recovery of public money."
2.8 It is further stated that Accused then addressed another letter dated 27.02.2010 to the Union Finance Minister, alleging as follows:-
"Ref.: Information on one Mr. Govind Kumar Sarda, Aditya Kumar Sarda and Amit Kumar Sarda for defrauding Dena Bank, Indian Overseas Bank by atleast over Rs.60.00 crores in the account of S. B. Pigments Limited - Dena Bank, Peacock Pigments Pvt. Ltd. - Indian Overseas Bank, 70 Golf Link Branch, New Delhi, M/s Santosh Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Delight Suppliers Pvt. Limited, Pennar Trading Pvt. Ld., Tirupati Niryat Pvt. Ltd. - Indian Overseas Bank, Jawaharlal Nehru Branch, Kolkata. As a public servant I need to draw Sir your kind attention towards the above illegal and fraudulent sanction of loan by the above banks. Upon my receiving the information of the above act, I immediately wrote a letter to the Chairman of the respective banks but surprisingly none of these banks bothered to take any cognizance or reply to my letter. A sum of Rs.60.00 crore is a big amount to be advanced to these unscrupulous persons who are already a defaulter in another nationalized bank - Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kolkata Region. The bank instead of checking the antecedents of the people involved has further advanced loan on other companies and properties.
I have informed that Indian Overseas Bank, Jawaharlal Nehru Branch, Kolkata has advanced Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 10 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh money on securitisation of rent of their own group Company making it a collusive advance. I have also written letter to the Governor, Reserve Bank of India and other departments on the same issue. I request your Honour to kindly order necessary investigation into this matter."
2.9 Thereafter, it is alleged by the Complainant that Accused sent a letter dated 01.06.2010 to the Prime Minister revealing a baseless and concocted story against the Complainant with copies addressed to (1) The Union Commerce Minister (2) The Cabinet Secretary (3) The Director, CBI (4) The Director General (S & D) New Delhi to falsely allege that:-
"Re: Scam in supply of Jute Bags by J.K. Jute Mills, owned by Mr. Govind Kumar Sarda, Mr. Aditya Kumar Sarda and Mr. Amit Sarda.
Refer to my earlier letters whereby I pointed out about the irregularities in payment of Rs.50.00 crores without supplying Jute Bags from J. K. Jute Mills in collusion and conspiracy with the officers of DGS&D, DGQA under Ministry of Commerce. I have come to learn that Mr. Govind Kumar Sarda, Mr. Aditya Kumar Sarda and Mr. Amit Sarda, who were earlier jailed for their supply of expired diagnostic kits for hepatitis by defrauding the exchequer collected payment against Jute Bags without supplying the materials. Sir, inspite of giving all the evidences, the proceedings are going very slow and this will allow time for Mr. Govind Kumar Sarda to destroy all the evidences. Furthermore, Mr. Govind Kumar Sarda has cleverly locked out the Jute Mills so that CBI does not get true and correct information on the ground of closure of Jute Mill. I request Hon'ble Sir that there is huge public money involved in this. Please order the agency to take quick action so that this can become a lesson to the people who are cheating and looting the Government."
Citing the above said letters, Complainant alleges that Accused has defamed him by making false imputations as contained in the above letter as he is not even a shareholder or Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 11 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh Director in J.K. Jute Mills. As per the Complainant, he became aware of this letter when he received a copy alongwith summons filed in suit filed by J.K. Jute Mills Co. Ltd.
2.10 It is further stated in the complaint that since the above mentioned letters dated 15.01.2010, 21.01.2010, 05.02.2010 and 27.02.2010 were addressed at Udyog Bhawan at New Delhi, Jeevan Tara Building at New Delhi and Lok Nayak Bhawan at New Delhi, the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
2.11 It is alleged that the Accused has been misusing and abusing his position as MLA for ulterior motives and malicious information to the Government Ministers, top bureaucrats, Managing Director of banks and other top officers of various government authorities with the only intention to destroy the image of the Complainant and standing of the Complainant in the Society.
2.12 It is alleged by the Complainant that when he visited the bank for some work, the bank Officer told him about the above said letters which had been received by the bank which cast serious doubts on the character and reputation of the Complainant. Further, it is also alleged that the bank officer told him that in view of the serious allegations made against the Complainant, it would be difficult for the bank to grant further assistance to the Companies in which the Complainant was involved. Complainant has specifically mentioned in his complaint that because of these letters, the Indian Overseas Bank which was initially considering giving a loan of Rs.30 Crores to Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 12 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh the Complainant, reduced it to Rs.24 Crores and that also was disbursed in a phased and delayed manner.
2.13 Complainant has further alleged that in his course of business during his interaction with several functionaries of the government as well as banks etc. and also with the public at large, Complainant is facing severe humiliation and is being questioned about the allegations made in these letters and is being looked at with suspicion regarding his character. Complainant alleges that the contents of the said letters are defamatory per se and imputations contained in the said letters have lowered the moral and intellectual character of the Complainant in the eyes of right thinking people of the society.
2.14 Complainant submits that he, his father, his brother and family members are receiving threats of dire consequences from the accused and Ghanshyam Sarda.
With the above-mentioned allegations and submissions, Complainant has alleged that acts of the accused constitute an offence within the meaning of Section 499 and 500 IPC for which he should be tried and punished if found guilty.
Trial Proceedings
3. Upon the above-mentioned complaint given by the Complainant, cognizance of the alleged offence was taken on 26.03.2011 and the matter was put up for pre-summoning evidence.
On 27.06.2011, Complainant examined two witnesses in pre-summoning evidence i.e. CW1 being Complainant Aditya Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 13 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh Sarda himself and CW2 Sh.Avik Basu. After examination of both said witnesses, Complainant closed his pre-summoning evidence and the matter was put up for arguments on summoning.
During his pre-summoning evidence as CW1, Complainant reiterated his entire complaint which has already been mentioned above and exhibited the following documents :
Copy of Newspaper Mark CW1/A
clippings
Letter dated 15.01.2010 Ex. CW1/B
Letter dated 21.01.2010 Ex. CW1/C
Letter dated 05.02.2010 Ex. CW1/D
Letter dated 23.02.2010 Ex. CW1/E
Letter dated 27.02.2010 Ex. CW1/F
Letter dated 01.06.2010 Ex. CW1/G
Letter dated 06.02.2011 Ex. CW1/H (Colly)
List of companies Ex.CW1/I
Complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. Ex.CW/J
PS: Parliament Street
Copy of complaints filed Ex. CW1/K (colly) against Ghanshyam Sarda by Complainant Avik Basu,Vigilance Officer, DGS&D, Sansad Marg, New Delhi deposed as CW2. He brought and showed the original letters dated 15.01.2010 (Ex.CW1/B) and 05.02.2010 (Ex.CW1/D) written by Accused Arjun Singh to various Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 14 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh government authorities. He deposed that the said letters have accused Aditya Sarda of fraud and forgery to the tune of Rs.50 Crores and their contents are very serious in nature. He further stated that these letters look at Aditya Sarda with suspicion and lowered his moral and intellectual character in their estimation. He stated that they decided to look into and inquired about these allegations.
4. On the basis of the pre-summoning evidence as mentioned above and after hearing the arguments on point of summoning, vide order dated 02.11.2011, holding that prima facie there appears to be sufficient material available on record to proceed against the accused for alleged commission of offence u/s 500 IPC, Court summoned the accused in the Court.
5. Upon his appearance in the Court, Accused was admitted to bail and as per directions, Complainant supplied copy of complaint and annexed documents to the Accused as per rules. Thereafter, on 26.07.2013, Notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. was framed and served upon the Counsel for accused on behalf of the accused u/s 499/500 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty on behalf of the accused and claimed trial. Accordingly, the matter was put up for Complainant's evidence.
6. In his post summoning evidence, Complainant did not bring any other witness apart from himself as CW1. Hence, in the absence of any other witness, it is only the testimony of the Complainant which shall determine as to whether he has been able to establish his allegations of defamation against the Accused or not.
Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 15 of 45Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh Thus, it is most crucial to examine the testimony of the Complainant in detail. Complainant deposed afresh in his examination in chief in post summoning evidence.
6.1 He stated that he is an Indian citizen, paying Income Tax and presently residing in Delhi as well as Kolkata. He further deposed that he is a Director in almost 20 companies including Axis Overseas Ltd., Tirupati Niryat Ltd., Santosh Promoters P. Ltd., Pennar Suppliers P. Ltd. etc. With respect to the Accused, he stated that Arjun Singh is a sitting MLA of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly and Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader having criminal background. Complainant also stated that Accused is involved in murder cases and other cases as well in West Bengal.
6.2 Complainant further deposed that accused has been writing various false and defamatory letters addressed to various authorities including Prime Minister of India, President of India, various government offices including CBI, DGS&D etc. and various banks including Allahabad Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Dena Bank etc. It was further stated that there is a family dispute between his father Govind Sarda and his Uncle Ghanshyam Sarda and Accused has been writing these letters for and on behalf of Ghanshyam Sarda. He also stated that he has filed various complaints against Ghanshyam Sarda and exhibited a copy of the same on record as Ex.CW1/K. 6.3 He further deposed that he has already placed on record the said defamatory letters which are already Ex.CW1/B, Ex.CW1/C, Ex.CW1/D, Ex.CW1/E, Ex.CW1/F and Ex.CW1/G. He stated Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 16 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh that all the allegations made in the said letters are false to the knowledge of Accused Arjun Singh. The letters were objected to by Ld. Counsel for the Accused as they were photocopies. On this aspect, Complainant stated that these letters have been admitted by the Accused in the High Court of Delhi in Civil Suit no. CS(OS) No.1053/2011. The objection was taken on record and shall be decided in the course of this judgment.
6.4 Further, Complainant stated that he came to know about these letters from his bankers and from a defamation suit filed against him and Accused Arjun Singh in Kanpur by J.K. Jute Mills on the basis of the same letters. Complainant specifically stated that he has never been a Director in J.K. Jute Mills.
6.5 It was further deposed by the Complainant that he spoke to his bankers and obtained copies of the above exhibited letters written by the Accused to bank. He added that he filed a Civil Suit before the High Court of Delhi seeking damages of Rs.3 Crores for the defamation caused by the Accused and moved the present case for criminal defamation before this Court. He stated that he had also written letters to the Home Minister of India explaining his situation and the threat he was facing from accused Arjun Singh. He brought copy of one such letter dated 06.02.2011 written by him to the Home Minister and other authorities and the same was exhibited as Ex.CW1/4 (OSR).
6.6 Complainant has stated that after the banks received false letters from accused Arjun Singh they have been eyeing him suspiciously and continuously auditing his accounts in whichever company he is the Director. He particularly stated that Indian Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 17 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh Overseas Bank reduced the credit limit from the loan they had planned to grant his Company. Further, he stated that Allahabad Bank after receiving the letters, asked him to take his account to some other bank.
6.7 As per the Complainant, he is being continuously asked to explain the false allegations/contents in the letters. Complainant further states that the government officials, who have received these letters in various ministries do not want to meet him or discuss the issues related to his business as letters have been written by a sitting MLA. Complainant also states that even after he explained the false allegations made by Accused in the said letters, they continued to eye him suspiciously. Complainant also pointed out that in a couple of these letters, Accused has also put allegations on the bank officials of conspiring with him and his company to grant loans. He exhibited his complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. r/w section 499/500 IPC as Ex.CW1/J. With these averments, Complainant closed his examination in chief and thereafter he was cross examined at length.
6.8 It is pertinent to note that the Complainant has been cross examined in this matter at length over a period of around seven hearings in the Court in question and answer form. Thus, for necessary reference to the cross examination of the Complainant, only the crux of relevant points extracted from his testimony, have been mentioned below:
(a) Complainant could not remember the names of all the companies in which he is a Director as mentioned in his examination in chief, however, he stated that he would provide a Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 18 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh list of such companies. Later, during his further cross examination, he placed on record a copy of the list and exhibited the same as Ex.CW1/I.
(b) With respect to the possession of letters Ex.CW1/B, Ex.CW1/D and Ex.CW1/G, he stated that he got the same during the suit filed by J.K. Jute Mills in Kanpur against Arjun Singh wherein he was also made a party. With respect to the possession of letter Ex.CW1/C, he stated that he got the same either from Allahabad bank or State Bank of India and with respect to the possession of letter Ex.CW1/E, he stated that he received the same from Indian Overseas Bank. Further, with respect to the possession of letter Ex.CW1/F, he stated that he got the same from Indian Overseas Bank, either Kolkata or Delhi.
(c) When questioned in regard to the details of the suit filed by J.K. Jute Mills at Kanpur, he could neither tell the date of the Suit or the date when he received summons in that matter or whether he appeared in person or through Advocate or through which Advocate he appeared. Even though he stated that the date of Suit filed by J.K. Jute Mills is matter of record, not even a single document including summons pertaining to the case filed by J.K. Jute Mills has been filed on record by the Complainant. A certified copy of Vakalatnama (Mark A) executed on 26.03.2011 filed on behalf of the Complainant in Civil Suit No. 599/2011 in Kanpur was put to the Complainant by Ld. Counsel for the Accused to which he stated that he will check and confirm its execution, however, he never reverted back.
(d) Complainant denied being a shareholder or a Director in Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 19 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh J.K. Jute Mills, however, admitted that he has appeared before the Court on behalf of J.K. Jute Mills as advisor.
(e) Complainant further stated that there is a dispute between his father Govind Sarda and his Uncle Ghanshyam Sarda and because of the same his Uncle Ghanshyam Sarda has caused the accused to write the alleged letters against him. However, he admitted that there is no documentary evidence in this regard but only knowledge that accused is often visiting Ghanshyam Sarda's office.
(f) When questioned about the details of the Bankers continuously auditing his account as mentioned in his examination in chief, Complainant stated that four companies namely, Tirupati Niryat P. Ltd., Santosh Promoters P. Ltd., Delight Suppliers P. Ltd. and Pennar Trading P. Ltd. having account with Indian Overseas Bank were continuously audited and the sanction limit was reduced because of these letters. He also added that second account of Axis Overseas Ltd. had to be removed from Allahabad Bank as the complaints were there and the Bankers did not want to continue the account and they were continuously auditing the account. It is pertinent to note that Complainant admitted that he has not placed on record any document pertaining to the above said issues raised by the banks and till the end of his cross examination he did not bring any such document pertaining to auditing of his account by the bank pursuant to complaints above mentioned or reduction of loan amount.
(g) With respect to letters Ex.CW1/C, Ex.CW1/D and Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 20 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh Ex.CW1/E, he admitted it to be correct that it cannot be stated from the said documents itself that they have been circulated to any other person except from the authorities to which they have been addressed to. Even though Complainant stated that action has been initiated on the basis of said letters, he admitted that he has not placed on record any document to prove the same.
(h) He denied to be a shareholder or Director in the company S.B. Pigments Pvt. Ltd. as mentioned in complaint Ex.CW1/C, however, admitted that he gives advise to this company. He stated that this is his brother's company. Further, he admitted that he was a Director in Peacock Pigment Company and the same has merged with another company of his; now known as Axis Nirman and Industries Ltd.
(i) He stated that on the basis of letter Ex.CW1/E pertaining to finance of 145, Ras Bihari Avenue, the Indian Overseas Bank reduced the loan amount initially sanctioned, however, admitted that he has not placed on record any document in this regard.
Further, he stated that he has documents to show that the loan was initially sanctioned and was later reduced on the basis of complaint Ex.CW1/E and he shall bring the same on Court record. However, till the end of his cross examination, he did not file any document to support this averment.
Later, he admitted that M/s. Santosh Promoters P. Ltd., Delight Suppliers P. Ltd., Pennar Trading P. Ltd. and Tirupati Niryat P. Ltd. had taken loan from Indian Overseas Bank for finance of property bearing no. 145, Ras Bihari Avenue, Kolkata and stated that the same had to be prepaid due to complaint Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 21 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh Ex.CW1/E. However, no such document pertaining to prepayment or the reason of prepayment was brought on record by the Complainant.
(j) He could not remember where he had received the documents Ex.CW1/B, Ex.CW1/D and Ex.CW1/G i.e. whether in Kanpur, Delhi or Kolkata.
(k) He admitted that the complaint Ex.CW1/H does not pertain to any of the Companies mentioned in Ex.CW1/I, however, he explained that this is the latest list of companies in which he is the Director and at the time of making the Complaint Ex.CW1/H he was the Director of Tetris Biotech Ltd.
(l) When questioned as to how inquiry was initiated by the authorities to whom complaints Ex.CW1/B to Ex.CW1/E were made against him, he stated that he was asked to reply to all the allegations made in the said letters and his company officials were called by the banks and the loans were either reduced or asked to be repaid. He stated that the said letters were also marked to CBI and Home Ministry but he was not aware as to whether inquiry had been initiated on the basis of said complaints or not. He stated that he had documentary evidence to show in this regard and shall produce the same, however, no such document was produced by him.
(m) He admitted that his company Axis Overseas Ltd. had taken a loan of Rs.1.35 Crores from State Bank of India, Ballygunj Commercial Branch as mentioned in Ex.CW1/C and stated that the same has been repaid. He stated that he had to prepay the entire loan due to complaint Ex.CW1/C. However, Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 22 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh despite opportunity he did not bring any document to support this averment.
(n) He could not disclose the exact date, time and place when he met with the Bank official as mentioned in his complaint who questioned his character, however, he stated that he met him during the time when his loan was sanctioned and disbursed.
(o) During his cross examination, the Complainant brought only one letter on Court record i.e. a letter written by him to Indian Overseas Bank which was taken on record and Mark B.
(p) He could not remember the name of the Officer which had cast serious doubt on his character after receiving the letter Ex.CW1/B to Ex.CW1/E as mentioned in his complaint. However, he stated that the person was from Indian Overseas Bank and was either DGM or AGM and was posted in Delhi as well as in Kolkata over different time period. He further stated that he met the said person first in Delhi and then in Kolkata. Also, he stated that the said person met him in Kolkata and informed him regarding the said complaints against him and his Companies.
When questioned to name the various dignitaries including government authorities to whom the Complainant met and felt that his reputation has been harmed because of the complaints sent by the accused, Complainant refused to name them.
(q) He specifically admitted that he has not come across any such newspaper cutting nor media clip wherein the complaints Ex.CW1/B to Ex.CW1/F were published.
Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 23 of 45(r) He admitted that he has not placed any document on record to support his contention that complaints made against him were malafide and that there was no default of loan of any banker when the accused sent the complaints against him.
(s) He admitted it to be correct that one FIR dated 27.09.2006 PS : Bow Bazar, Kolkata is registered against him u/s 120B/406/ 420/467/468/469/471 IPC r/w Section 9/9B/13/17/17B/ 27 Drugs and Cosmetics Act for supplying/manufacturing spurious misbranding kits for detection of HbsAG and HBC before blood transfusion to the patient. He was put with a document Mark E stating to be typed copy of charge sheet in the said FIR, however, he stated that he cannot comment upon it. Further, he stated that he remained in police custody for 2-3 days and was thereafter granted bail in that matter.
With respect to FIR no. 115 dated 21.03.2014 PS Ambala City, u/s 406/420/120B IPC, he stated that he is not named in the FIR but has applied for anticipatory bail. He further admitted that initially he got anticipatory bail but the same was later rejected and at present there is a direction of no coercive action against him. He was put with certified copy of the aforesaid FIR (Ex.CW1/D1), however, he stated that he was seeing the document for the first time.
He was also put with FIR no. 22/2014 PS Kanpur Nagar (Mark F) stating that the same has been registered against him, however, he stated that he has no knowledge about the same.
(t) Earlier in his cross examination he had stated that he had nothing to do with Rainy Part Supplier Pvt. Ltd., however, later Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 24 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh he admitted it to be correct that he appeared for Rainy Part Supplier Pvt. Ltd. before BIFR in case no. 149/1992 pertaining to J.K. Jute Mills. He denied having knowledge that Rainy Part Supplier Pvt. Ltd. was allowed to take over management of J.K. Jute Mills vide order dated 18.09.2000 by BIFR.
Previously, in his cross examination he had admitted that he is part owner of 70, Golf Links, New Delhi and some of his companies have registered offices at this address. Later in his cross examination he denied having knowledge that 70, Golf Links, New Delhi is the address on record of IDBI Bank pertaining to J.K. Jute Mills.
Lastly, Complainant denied all the suggestions of Ld. Counsel for the Accused pertaining to Complainant himself being the owner of J.K. Jute Mills as well as the suggestion that no case of defamation is made out against the accused on the basis of any of the complaints written by him as the same were made to public authorities by the accused in the capacity of the public servant.
With this, the cross examination of the Complainant was closed on 14.12.2018.
7. Thereafter, several opportunities were given to the Complainant to bring further evidence in support of his case, however, Complainant did not avail of the opportunities and eventually on 13.09.2019, Complainant's evidence was closed by the order of the Court and the matter was listed for examination of the Accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
On 18.10.2019, Ld. Counsel for the Accused moved an Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 25 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh application u/s 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. submitting that since the Accused had been given permanent exemption during trial by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. may be dispensed with. In the same application, Accused had also specifically stated that he did not want to lead any evidence in his defence. After perusal of the record and upon due hearing of the parties, Court dispensed with the examination of the Accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and the matter was listed for final arguments.
On 23.11.2019, Complainant had moved an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed on the same day itself, however, Complainant moved the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the said order of dismissal and vide order dated 28.11.2019, further proceedings before this Court had been stayed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Thereafter, the matter continued to remain stayed for around 4 years in this Court and only with order dated 08.11.2023, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dismissed the petition of the Complainant and the matter was restored before this Court.
Accordingly, as the matter was at the stage of final arguments, the matter was proceeded further with and an opportunity was given to both the sides to argue their respective cases. While Ld. Counsel for the Complainant preferred not to address oral arguments before the Court and gave only written submissions alongwith supporting authorities; Ld. Counsel for the Accused argued the matter at length and also filed written submissions alongwith several authorities.
Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 26 of 45Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention here that the matter was listed for judgment on 20.12.2023, however, vide Order of the Delhi High Court bearing no.49/DHC/Gaz./G- 7/VI.E.2(a)/2023 dated 14.12.2023, the undersigned was transferred as CMM, Shahdara. It was directed in the said posting order that, The judicial officers under transfer shall notify the cases in which they had reserved judgments/orders before relinquishing the charge of the court in terms of the posting/transfer order. The judicial officers shall pronounce judgments/orders in all such matters on the date fixed or maximum within a period of 2-3 weeks thereof, notwithstanding the posting/transfer. Date of pronouncement shall be notified in the cause list of the court to which the matter pertains as also of the court to which the judicial officer has been transferred and on the website.
In view of the above directions, the undersigned has proceeded further in this matter. On 20.12.2023, an order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was communicated to the court as per which restoration application filed by the Complainant had been allowed and this court was directed to list the matter after first week of January, 2024. Accordingly, this matter was listed for 11.01.2024 and the judgment is being pronounced today.
Final arguments
8. Ld. Counsel for the Accused argued the matter in support of the acquittal of the accused and covered not only the facts and evidence brought on record but also all the connected legal aspects of the case i.e. on law of defamation as well as relevant Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 27 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. Ld. Counsel for the Accused started off his arguments by stating that this matter has been delayed for several years by the Complainant by taking multiple adjournments. It was further stated that this a luxury litigation wherein the Complainant is one of the top industrialists and targeting the Accused, who is a sitting Member of Parliament and performing his duties as per law. It was argued that the present case has been filed on the basis of a few letters written by the Accused to some government authorities and it is pertinent to note that on the basis of same letters, 3 other cases have been filed by the Complainant and Accused has been exonerated in all of them. In order to support this averment, Ld. Counsel for the Accused also filed on record copy of two judgments titled as Libra Retailers Private Limited vs. Arjun Singh [Passed by District Jugde, Bhopal, M.P. dated 28.08.2023] and Libra Retailers Private Limited vs. Arjun Singh [Passed by JMIC, Bhopal, M.P. dated 20.12.2022].
Giving this background, Ld. Counsel for the Accused put forward his contentions seeking acquittal on the following grounds:
(i) The case of the Complainant is based on 6 (six) letters i.e. Ex. CW1/B to Ex.CW1/G which were allegedly written by him to several government authorities seeking to initiate inquiry.
Thus, the said letters were most important piece of evidence which should have been brought by the Complainant on Court record. However, the Complainant has only filed photocopies of the said letters and not even a single original letter has been filed by the Complainant on record and hence, the said letters are not Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 28 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh admissible as evidence in the Court.
In support of this contention, Ld. Counsel for the Accused referred to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act whereby Section 3 defines evidence to mean and include all documents including electronic record produced for the inspection of the Court.
Referring to Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act, Ld. Counsel for the Accused argued that as none of the original letters relied upon by the Complainant have been produced by him for inspection of the Court, they are not admissible as evidence in the Court.
(ii) Further, it was argued that while letters Ex.CW1/B and Ex.CW1/D bear a stamp of an office, Ex.CW1/C, Ex.CW/E and Ex.CW1/F have no receipt. It was argued that this clearly implies that letters have been procured by the Complainant through illegal means. Further, it was argued that even though in his testimony as well in his complaint, Complainant has stated that he came to know about the letters Ex.CW1/B to Ex. CW1/G on receiving summons of the Court filed in suit filed by J.K. Jute Mills, no proof of the same has been brought on record. Admittedly, neither the copy of the suit has been brought on record nor any copy of summons received from the Court. Further, it was argued that none of the letters exhibited on record bear any stamp of the Court or any other marking through which it can be determined that they were received by the Complainant from the Court.
Reading out the evidence, Ld. Counsel for the Accused specifically stated that at one point, witness submits that suit filed Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 29 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh by J.K. Jute Mills is a matter of record but later in evidence he has admitted it to be correct that he has not filed any document on record pertaining to the case of J.K. Jute Mills and thus, credibility of the witness becomes questionable.
(iii) Moving ahead, Ld. Counsel for the Accused argued that even though Complainant has alleged that due to the letters written by the Accused, his reputation was lowered in the eyes of the banks and they reduced the credit limits, not even a single document has been filed on record by the Complainant to prove the same. It was argued that the banks do not do auditing on the basis of random complaint letters and rather they have their own procedure and they reduce or increase the credit limits of any entity on the basis of credit rating, number of loans, defaults etc. Going through the record, Ld. Counsel for the Accused argued that not even a single document pertaining to banking transactions has been brought on record by the Complainant and thus, no loss of reputation of the Complainant stands proved on record.
(iv) Ld. Counsel for the Accused further argued that Complainant has mentioned in his complaint that banks asked him to prepay the loan on account of loss of reputation as a result of the letters written by the Accused. Reading out the cross examination of the Complainant, Ld. Counsel for the Accused pointed out that Complainant has himself admitted that he has not brought on record any document pertaining to prepayment of loan and thus, nothing on record proves that prepayment of loan, if any, by the Complainant to his banks was because of letters of Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 30 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh the Accused. Rather, it was argued that loan prepayment was demanded by the bank as Complainant was a loan repayment defaulter as apparent from document Mark D.
(v) Ld. Counsel for the Accused also argued on the aspect of jurisdiction of this Court to conduct trial in this matter. Reading out the cross examination of the Complainant, Ld. Counsel for the Accused argued that Complainant has himself admitted that the document Ex.CW1/C and Ex. CW1/E have not been circulated apart from the 8 authorities to which they have been sent and therefore, admittedly there is no circulation or publication of the alleged defamatory letters. It was further stated that the Complainant does not even remember where he received those letters. It was pointed out that the Complainant has himself stated that he is neither unable to remember the name of the Officer who doubted his character nor his exact designation etc. and also admits that there is no newspaper cutting or media clip where Ex.CW1/B to Ex.CW1/F were published and therefore, publication of the said letters is questionable. It was specifically stated that as per the Complainant, he received the copy of the defamatory letters in a suit in Kanpur and he has stated later in his cross examination that he received information about the letters from the bank Officer in Kolkata. In both the scenarios, it was argued that jurisdiction of Delhi becomes questionable.
(vi) Further, it was argued that in order to establish harm caused to his reputation, Complainant should have brought on record that he is a respectable person of the Society with unblemished character. It was argued that even though Complainant professes being a respectable member of the Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 31 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh Society, it has been brought out during his cross examination that he has been involved in several criminal cases and he has also been in police custody. To buttress his arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Accused relied upon the Ex.CW1/D1 which is a certified copy of "Halaat Mukadama" in FIR no. 115 dated 21.03.2014 in the Court of Ambala and stated that the character of the Complainant is itself a questionable and hence, in a first place he did not carry a reputation to harm.
(vii) Ld. Counsel for the Accused also stressed on the fact that no other witness apart from the Complainant himself has come in the witness box to depose in this matter. It was argued that even though the Complainant submits that several dignitaries and government functionaries met him and told him that they felt that the reputation of the Complainant had been harmed, not even a single such person has been brought in the court to testify in this regard. Hence, it was argued that there is no witness in this case for proving the damage to the reputation of the Complainant.
In this context, Ld. Counsel for the Accused referred to Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act which provides that oral evidence must be direct. The provision further clarifies and explains the meaning of direct evidence by providing that If it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it; If it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it; If it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner. Referring to the provision, Ld. Counsel for the Accused contended that no Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 32 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh direct evidence has been brought on record by the Complainant to prove his allegations of defamation. It was argued that even though Complainant alleges that several persons including government functionaries, bank officials and people in general met him and looked at him with suspicion because of the alleged letters, not even a single witness has deposed to support the Complainant's case and thus, the evidence brought by the Complainant is nothing more than hear-say evidence which has no value in the eyes of law.
(viii) With respect to pre-summoning evidence, it was argued that the same is only an inquiry conducted by the Court to find out whether any offence is made out or not and for that purpose, Complainant had examined himself as CW1 and Mr. Avik Basu, Vigilance Officer, DGS&D as CW2. However, in post summoning evidence, Complainant has only put himself to the test of cross examination and CW2 has not been brought at the stage of post summoning evidence and thus, not cross examined and hence, his statement has no legal value.
Covering the legal aspects in this regard, Ld. Counsel for the Accused read out the definition of defamation as provided in Section 499 IPC and stated that publication of an imputation either by words spoken or intended to be read is pre-requisite for the completion of the offence of defamation and the phrase harm of reputation is qualified by Explanation 4 to Section 499 IPC which provides that - harm to reputation is caused only when in the eyes of the third person, the reputation is lowered. It was thus argued that since no third person has been examined by the Complainant to prove loss of his reputation and he has not even Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 33 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh proved on record that he is a respectable person of the Society having unblemished record, the offence of defamation is clearly not established.
Ld. Counsel for the Accused further argued that publication is also a pre-requisite for the completion of the offence of defamation. It was argued that publication has not been proved by the Complainant and only because Accused forwarded certain letters to government authorities as a responsible citizen, they cannot be said to have been published.
With these submissions, Ld. Counsel for the Accused prayed for his acquittal from the case stating that clearly no evidence has been brought on record by the Complainant to establish that he has been defamed by the Accused.
9. Submissions of Ld. Counsel for the Accused have been duly heard. Written submissions filed by Ld. Counsel for both the sides along with supporting authorities have also been perused.
Appreciation of Evidence
10. The case at hand pertains to the offence of defamation as defined u/s 499 IPC. Thus, at the outset, it is pertinent to peruse the relevant legal provision as well as the necessary ingredients required to prove the offence.
Section 499 of the IPC titled as Defamation defines the offence as follows:
Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 34 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.
Explanation 1.--It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
Explanation 2.--It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3.--An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation.
Explanation 4.--No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.
From the bare reading of the provision itself, it is manifest that to constitute the offence of defamation there should be an imputation by the Accused as a consequence of which the reputation of the aggrieved is lowered in the estimation of third parties. This also implies that publication of the imputation made by the Accused is indispensable for completion of the offence.
In its leading judgment titled as Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India [(2016) 7 SCC 221], the Supreme Court of India upholding the Constitutional validity of the offence of Defamation u/s 499/500 IPC highlighted the essentials to Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 35 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh constitute the offence of defamation in the following words:
165. For the aforesaid purpose, it is imperative to analyse in detail what constitutes the offence of "defamation" as provided under Section 499 of IPC. To constitute the offence, there has to be imputation and it must have made in the manner as provided in the provision with the intention of causing harm or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the person about whom it is made. Causing harm to the reputation of a person is the basis on which the offence is founded and mens rea is a condition precedent to constitute the said offence. The Complainant has to show that the accused had intended or known or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the Complainant. The criminal offence emphasizes on the intention or harm. Section 44 of IPC defines "injury". It denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person,in body, mind, reputation or property. Thus, the word "injury"
encapsulates harm caused to the reputation of any person. It also takes into account the harm caused to a person's body and mind. Section 499 provides for harm caused to the reputation of a person, that is, the Complainant. In Jeffrey J. Diermeier and another v. State of West Bengal and another 152, a two-Judge Bench deliberated on the aspect as to what constitutes defamation under Section 499 of IPC and in that context, it held that there must be an imputation and such imputation must have been made with the intention of harming or knowing or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person about whom it is made. In essence, the offence of defamation is the harm caused to the reputation of a person. It would be sufficient to show that the accused intended or knew or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the Complainant, irrespective of whether the Complainant actually suffered directly or indirectly from the imputation alleged.
Also, in its judgment titled as Vineet Jain Vs. State of NCT Delhi [2011 (184) DLT 596], the High Court of Delhi Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 36 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh elucidating upon the essentials of the offence of defamation held as follows:
14. Defamation has been defined as a false statement which has the tendency to disparage the good name or reputation of another person. Strictly speaking, in terms of the statute, as per Section 499 Indian Penal Code, the offence of defamation consists of three vital components which can be categorised as under:-
(i) Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person.
(ii) Such imputation must have been made by words either written or spoken or by visible representation.
(iii) Such imputation must be made with the intention to cause harm or with the knowledge or having reasons to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned.
From the above quoted relevant legal provisions and authorities, it is apparent that making/publishing defamatory statements against any person is punishable when made with the intention to harm his/her reputation.
11. With regard to determination of the issue as to whether an imputation has been made with an intention to harm the reputation of a person or not, Explanation-4 to Section 499 comes into play. Explanation-4 categorically provides that an imputation is said to harm a person's reputation only when in the eyes of a third party to the communication the moral/intellectual character of that person is lowered. Thus, the third and most important ingredient, i.e. intention to harm the reputation of a Complainant or Mens Rea, is qualified by the said explanation and is a key factor in determining the completion of the offence of defamation. In Subramanian Swamy Judgment (Supra), speaking on the importance of Explanation-4 to Section 499, it Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 37 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh was held that by the Supreme Court as follows:
166. Having dwelt upon the ingredients, it is necessary to appreciate the Explanations appropriately. There are four Explanations to the main provision and an Explanation has been appended to the Fourth Exception. Explanation 4 needs to be explained first. It is because the said Explanation provides the expanse and the inherent control wherein what imputation has been regarded as harm to a person's reputation and that an imputation can only be treated as harm of a person's reputation if it directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.
Further, on the necessity of the element of reputation of Complainant being harmed in the estimation of others, the Delhi High Court in its judgment titled as S.T.P Singh vs Tarsem Singh & Ors [(2018) SCC Online Del 9978] held that:
9. It is clear from a bare reading of the above extracted provision that it is not only essential that the impugned imputation harming the reputation of the person in question must be alleged to have been "made" or "published" but also that it must be shown, amongst others, to have directly or indirectly, inter alia, lowered the moral or intellectual character of the said person "in the estimation of others".
...
12. The key words in the main clause wherein the offence of defamation is defined by Section 499 IPC are "makes or publishes" the "imputation"
encompassing insinuation with the propensity "to harm" the "reputation" of the person against whom the same is directed. For the present discussion, the said clause has to be read in light of the explanations appended thereto particularly the fourth explanation which excludes from the purview of the criminal offence the imputations with such Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 38 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh insinuation as to the character of the affected person unless it is designed to adversely affect the reputation "in the estimation of others".
Thus, it is indispensable for the Complainant to lead evidence to show, at the outset, that his character has been lowered in the eyes of a third person.
12. Coming now to the facts of this case, in the first place, it is pertinent to mention that even though complainant has filed a case of defamation against the Accused, in his entire complaint or at point of time during his entire testimony in the court he has not mentioned name of even one person in whose eyes his reputation got tarnished. Complainant has merely mentioned generally that his reputation had got lowered in the eyes of government officers, bank officials etc. but not mentioned their names, even after specific question being put in this regard during his cross- examination.
13. Further, no other witness has been got examined by the Complainant in his post-summoning evidence to establish his case apart from himself. As already mentioned above, reputation is not one thinks of himself, it is what others think of you and when no third person has come to depose and not even named in the deposition of the Complainant who can testify that indeed in his eyes the reputation of the Complainant got lowered, proving of the case of defamation becomes highly questionable. In its recent judgment titled as Nakkheeran Gopal and Ors. vs. Rajendran [MANU/TN/2379/2022] pointing out the importance of an independent witness in a defamation case it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Madras that:
Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 39 of 45Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh
8. Explanation 4 is relevant here. What is important to make out the case of defamation as per Explanation 4 is that, only if a person's reputation, character and credit is directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, is lowered, the offence of defamation would be attracted. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the reading of the complaint allegations shows that there is no pleading as to whether respondent's reputation, character and credit is harmed in the estimation of others. Most importantly, the respondent has not cited any witness to speak about his reputation being dented in the estimation of others on reading the article referred in the complaint. Admittedly, no witness was examined to speak about this aspect.
In the case at hand also, Complainant has neither brought any witness in the dock in post summoning evidence apart from himself nor even mentioned any third person's name in the list of witnesses who may be able to testify with respect to damaging of his reputation on account of imputations made by the Accused.
At this stage, it is pertinent to discuss the relevancy of testimony of CW2 Avik Basu who had deposed during the pre- summoning evidence. The question which needs to be answered here is whether the testimony of CW2 given during per- summoning evidence can be read against the Accused or not. The answer to this question can be simply found in the Indian Evidence Act,1872 as well as leading authorities on this aspect, which have also been quoted by Ld. Counsel for the Accused while addressing his final arguments to the court.
Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act provides the categories of examinations of witnesses as follows:
137. Examination-in-chief. -- The examination of witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief. Cross-examination. -- The Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 40 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination.
Re-examination. --The examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-examination by the party who called him, shall be called his re-examination.
Further, Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for the Order of examinations as follows:
Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined.
Bare reading of the above provisions makes it clear that the examination or testimony of any witness shall be considered to be completed only after the witness has not only been examined in chief but has also undergone the test of cross-examination. It is only upon the cross-examination of the witness by the adverse party that the veracity of the witness can be tested to establish the truthfulness of his statement given in court. Hence, without cross-examination of the witness his testimony cannot be read in evidence in court. The same has also been highlighted by the leading judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter titled as Ripen Kumar vs Department Of Customs [2001 CriLJ 1288] wherein it has been held that:
The words "all statements" include the examination-in- chief as well as the cross examination and subject to the permission re-examination also. It is only when the witness is permitted to be cross-examined that the credibility of the witness can be looked into. The emphasis is on the fact that the witness had been cross-examined fully. Only thereafter the evidence given by a witness in judicial proceeding is relevant for the purpose of proving a particular fact. But if the witness has not been permitted to be cross-examined then such a statement cannot be termed as an evidence of the witness nor can it be read in evidence. It must be remembered that where part cross-Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 41 of 45
Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh examination took place such a statement cannot be called evidence in the eyes of law. The procedure as laid down under the Evidence Act is clear and unambiguous. Under the Evidence Act, evidence means the examination-in- chief and cross-examination. That statement alone will form evidence.
In the case at hand as well, CW2 has not been got summoned by the Complainant for his cross-examination and thus, his deposition cannot be read in evidence for deciding the merits of the case.
Thus, it stands established without any doubts that Complainant has not brought any independent witness in support of his case of defamation which is a pre-requisite for completion of the offence.
14. Yet another essential to complete the offence of defamation is Publication of the alleged defamatory imputations. As already discussed at length above, private communication between two persons can never attract the offence of defamation and the very rationale behind attaching criminal liability to the act of defamation is to punish the intent to cause harm to the reputation of a person in the estimation of a third person. Thus, without publication of defamatory imputation, there can be no harm to the reputation and consequently, no offence of defamation.
In the case at hand, Complainant has admitted that the complaint letters written by the Accused have not been sent by him to any other person other than the person to whom the complaint has been addressed. Thus, as such on the part of the Accused, the complaint letters have not been sent to any other person apart from the addressees. Further, Complainant has also admitted in his cross-examination that there are no newspaper Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 42 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh reports or other media coverage in regard to the said complaints against the Complainant and thus, yet again it is an admitted fact that there is no publication of the allegedly defamatory letters at the end of the Accused.
15. Last but not the least, even if it is presumed that the alleged defamatory letters were published by the Accused, it was the first and foremost onus of the Complainant that he should have either brought those letters in the court himself or got them summoned through independent witnesses. The entire case of the Complainant is based on the letters exhibited as Ex.CW1/B to Ex.CW1/G, however, to the utter dismay of Complainant, these letters were never produced in the court. Only photocopies of these letters have been placed on record by the Complainant and even in respect of those photocopies, he could not prove the source from which they have been procured. He kept on repeating in his testimony that the said letters have been obtained along with summons in J.K. Jute Mills case filed at Kanpur and from the concerned banks, however, he brought no document to support this averment. Complainant could have summoned the court record of J.K. Jute Mills case in this court or at least filed certified copies of the court record containing original letters, however, Complainant made no such efforts. The averment of the Complainant that these letters have been admitted by the Accused in the High Court of Delhi in Civil Suit no. CS(OS) No.1053/2011, shall have no bearing on the merits of this case and same were required to be proved independently by the Complainant on court record.
Complainant has also alleged that the banks reduced his Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 43 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh credit limit/loan amount and also, he was asked to prepay his loans as the banks started doubting his character on account of the complaint letters written by the Accused, however, again, despite opportunity and despite giving submissions in the court that he would bring relevant documents, not even a single such document was filed by the Complainant on court record.
16. With above discussion on legal as well as factual aspects of the case there remains no scope of doubt that Complainant miserably failed to prove his case against the Accused. None of the essentials of the offence of defamation were proved on record by the Complainant despite availing sufficient opportunities. He could not even prove the making of any defamatory imputation by the Accused, leave aside its publication. By being unable to bring any independent witness in the witness box to prove his allegations against the Accused, Complainant could not even prove the alleged criminal intent of the Accused. Lastly, and most importantly, Accused could not even prove even an iota of loss to his reputation on account of the alleged letters written by the Complainant. From the perusal of evidence brought on record by the Complainant, it appears that his case was built on conjectures and surmises rather than on proven facts. As already mentioned in the beginning of this judgment, Reputation is what others actually think of you and not your own estimation about what others think of you; proving of loss of reputation in the eyes of a third person was essential for the case of the Complainant which he failed to do.
The foundation of the case of the Complainant was the alleged defamatory letters written by the Accused which he could Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 44 of 45 Aditya Sarda vs. Arjun Singh never prove on record and when the foundation falls, superstructure built on the same is bound to fall. Thus, nothing survives in the complaint of defamation brought by the Complainant.
Conclusion
17. In view of the above discussion on facts and circumstances of the case as well as the ocular and documentary evidence brought on record and also in the light of the leading judgements elucidating the law on defamation, this court has no hesitation in holding that the Accused Arjun Singh not guilty of the offence of defamation and thus, he stands acquitted for the offence u/s 499/500 IPC with which he had been charged. Digitally signed by VIDHI VIDHI GUPTA GUPTA ANAND ANAND Date:
2024.01.11 17:27:33 +0530 Vidhi Gupta Anand Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [Previously posted as ACMM-01, RADC, New Delhi] 11.01.2024.
Announced in open Court on 11.01.2024.
Complaint Case No. 34/2019 Page No. 45 of 45