Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bashir Ulla Khan vs Mohd. Rafi And Anr. on 18 May, 2006
Author: U.C. Maheshwari
Bench: U.C. Maheshwari
ORDER U.C. Maheshwari, J.
1. This petition is directed by the applicant under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. for grant of Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment dated 23-6-2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal in Criminal Case No. 1164/ 02 acquitting the respondent from the charge punishable under Section 500 of the IPC.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition in short are that the applicant filed a private complaint against the respondent alleging the offence under Section 500 of IPC. As per averments of the said complaint dated 14-8-1997 the respondent went to the office of CBI Police, SBI, Bhopal and lodged a report against the applicant alleging that the applicant being public servant posted on the post of Foreman in B.H.E.L., Bhopal and also looking after the work as Supervisor of Public Health Department, Piplam had demanded bribe of Rs. 1100/- for completing the work register regarding carried out work by the respondent as Contractor but the applicant did not want to give such bribe. In response of the report an offence was registered by said authority and after holding investigation the applicant was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), r/w Section 13(2)(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in short the Act. The same was tried by the Special Court constituted under the Act as Special Case No. 75/97 and by judgment dated 21-5-1998 on account of benefit of doubt, the applicant was acquitted from the aforesaid charges. The applicant was arrested and remained on bail during trial. In such circumstances he has lost his reuputation in amongst the persons of society at large by which he suffered mental and physical pain. According to applicant, he lost his reputation by the aforesaid defamatory act of the respondent. Hence impugned complaint was filed to prosecute the respondent under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. by alleging the offence covered by Section 500 of IPC. By taking cognizance, on holding trial the respondent has been acquitted by the impugned judgment, hence this petition.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the applicant having unblemished service career with best reputation in the society and his department. If the aforesaid report dated 14-8-1997 had not been filed by the respondent then circumstances to prosecute the appellant could not be arisen, So at the instance of the respondent the applicant was prosecuted under the aforesaid trial of Prevention of Corruption Act. In such case on appreciation of evidence, offence was not made out. Resultantly the applicant has been acquitted from the alleged charges. It shows that said report was given by the respondent with mala fide intention for causing injury to reputation of the applicant. The petitioner had lost his reputation because of said trial for which respondent is responsible and the same was proved before the trial Court. Hence, in view of available evidence, offence under Section 500 of the IPC was proved in spite of it on wrong appreciation of the evidence and by wrong proposition of law the respondent has been acquitted. So far maintainability of the prosecution is concerned, he has submitted that bar provided under Section 499 was not applicable against the applicant and the complaint was maintainable. But this issue was decided against him under violation of the provision. In support of it he placed his reliance on a decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in the matter of A.N. Gupta v. The State reported in 1999 Criminal Law Journal 4932 and prayed to allow his petition.
4. Having heard, on perusing the record, it is true that at the instance of the respondent the offence was registered against the applicant. The investigation under the Act was held and he was charge-sheeted and also suffered the trial. But on appreciation of the evidence, he has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.
5. It is apparent from the judgment dated 21-5-1998, passed by the Special Judge in Special Case No. 75/97, (Ex. P/1 in the trial Court record) that the report made by the respondent was not found false. In absence of it, no inference can be drawn against the respondent that he had given false report to the Police Department, through CBI Branch. On the contrary the applicant was acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt as per para 42 of said judgment, then the question comes whether the respondent as complainant of such report could be prosecuted for defamatory act after acquittal of the applicant. For consideration of this question, firstly this Court has to see the concerning provision of IPC in which some exceptions are provided. Out of those exceptions in any of it, if the said report of respondent is covered, then the instant criminal case neither was maintainable nor the respondent could be prosecuted, The relevant Section of 499 reads as under:
Defamation- 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, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereafter excepted, to defame person. First Exception...
Second Exception...
Third Exception...
Fourth Exception...
Fifth Exception...
Sixth Exception...
Seventh Exception...
Eight Exception - Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person - It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.
6. In view of the aforesaid provision on going though the recorded evidence by the trial Court and other papers of it, it appears that by mentioning elaborate facts the report was made by the respondent against the applicant to the lawful authority. On receiving such report by the concerned Police Officer it was investigated as per procedure prescribed under Section 154 and onward and on collecting sufficient evidence, the applicant was charge-sheeted by the prosecution under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the respondent was only the informer. He informed to the Police regarding cognizable offence. On investigation, having sufficient circumstances the case was found fit by the Police for prosecution and the charge-sheet was submitted. Then in view of said provision even after acquittal of the applicant on benefit of doubt (sic). In such situation no inference can be drawn that the respondent had given said complaint on false averments or with an intention to cause any harm/Injury or to the reputation of the applicant. As such it appears that such report was given bonafidely by the respondent and whenever any Investigation is made on information supplied in good faith or without any mala fide intention, then the person who made the report cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 500 of IPC. This legal position was considered by the trial Court for acquittal of the respondent.
7. Thus, I do not find any perversity or inconsistency in the impugned judgment. The approach of the trial Court does not appear to be wrong in any manner. The respondent was rightly acquitted.
8. The case law cited by the applicant is not applicable to the present matter as in the cited case the FIR lodged by the accused, was found false and on baseless allegations with an intention to cause injury and harm to the reputation of such complainant. Under such circumstance the order of acquittal of accused of the offence under Sections 500 and 211 of the IPC was set aside by the High Court of Rajasthan which is not the situation here.
9. Hence in view of the aforesaid discussion the cited case does not help to the applicant.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion I have not found any circumstance which require any consideration at the stage of the appeal. Resultantly this petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the stage of mot.