Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Kumar vs Ramesh Chander Aggarwal on 6 August, 2009
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
Crl. Appeal No. 280-MA of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : Crl. Appeal No. 280-MA of 2009
Date of Decision : August 06, 2009
Ram Kumar .... Petitioner-Appellant
Vs.
Ramesh Chander Aggarwal
and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate
for the petitioner-appellant.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
This is application under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short - Cr.P.C.) for grant of Special Leave to appeal filed by the complainant Ram Kumar assailing judgment dated 25.03.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar, thereby acquitting respondents no.1 to 3 in criminal complaint instituted by the petitioner- appellant against them under Sections 499 and 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short - IPC).
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and perused the case file.
A news item was published in newspaper Dainik Bhaskar (Hisar Edition) on 08.08.2000 levelling certain allegations against the complainant, who was working as Peon in Government School. The news reporter mentioned in the news item that the said allegations had been Crl. Appeal No. 280-MA of 2009 2 levelled by respondents no.2 and 3 against the petitioner. Respondent no.1 is Editor Publication of the said newspaper. The petitioner alleged that his reputation was lowered in the estimation of public by the aforesaid news article.
After the complainant led preliminary evidence, respondents no.1 to 3 were summoned to face trial for offence under Section 500 read with Section 34 IPC. After their appearance in Court, notice of accusation was served on the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the complainant himself appeared as PW-1 and reiterated his version and placed on record newspaper Mark-A. No other evidence was led by the complainant in support of his version.
The accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied all the incriminating circumstances and claimed to be innocent. Learned trial Magistrate, vide impugned judgment dated 25.03.2009, acquitted the accused. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has filed this petition for Special Leave to appeal against the said judgment.
From the sole self-serving statement of the complainant, no case of defamation is proved against respondents no.1 to 3. Even the newspaper, which contained the defamatory news, has not been proved by summoning any official from the office of the newspaper. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to prove that respondents no.2 and 3 got the said news item published. The news reporter could only say that respondents no.2 and 3 had made the said allegations against the petitioner, but the said news reporter has not been examined as witness. There is also no other evidence on record to even remotely suggest that respondents no.2 and 3 had made the said allegations as published in the news item. Of course, the news item mentions that the said allegations were levelled by respondents no.2 and 3. However, merely on this basis, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, it cannot be said that respondents no.2 and 3 had made the said Crl. Appeal No. 280-MA of 2009 3 allegations. On the other hand, the newspaper correspondent, who had given the said news item, was given up by the complainant by making statement and the complaint qua him was dismissed. He was the main culprit against whom the complainant himself got the complaint dismissed. No case for conviction of respondent no.1 is either made out because he is merely Editor of the publication of the newspaper. The news item was published in the newspaper as per news report given by the concerned correspondent, who has been given up by the complainant.
In addition to the aforesaid, the petitioner did not examine any person to depict that petitioner's reputation had been lowered in the eyes of anybody on account of publication of the aforesaid news item. Consequently, this essential ingredient of offence of defamation has also not been established. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has relied on a judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Nandlal A. Paliwal and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported as 2007 (5) R. C. R. (Criminal) 830. However, in that case on the basis of evidence, it was proved that publication of the defamatory material was not made in good faith and therefore, the accused was not held entitled to benefit of Exception 9 to Section 499 IPC because burden to prove that publication was in good faith was on the accused. In the instant case, however, the complainant failed to prove that news item was got published by respondents no.2 and 3. In the instant case, respondents are not claiming the benefit of exception. On the other hand, the complainant himself has failed to prove his case.
In view of the aforesaid, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, petition for Special Leave to appeal is dismissed.
August 06, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE