Karnataka High Court
D Venugopal S/O D Hanamanthappa vs Y Manjunath S/O Y Devendrappa on 2 February, 2023
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100017/2015
BETWEEN:
D. VENUGOPAL S/O D. HANUMANTHAPPA
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE COUNCILOR,
R/O: RANIPET, HOSPET,
BELLARY DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Y. MANJUNATHA S/O Y. DEVENDRAPPA
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT,
EIB NO.2, VIJAYANAGARA,
BANGALORE - 560 040.
AT PRESENT:
JOINT COMMISSIONER EXCISE (E & I)
NEAR S. P. OFFICE, OPP: MARATA MANDALI,
SUJATA
BELAGAVI, D V. BELAGAVI.
SUBHASH
PAMMAR
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI T. M. NADAF, AMICUS CURIAE)
Digitally signed by
SUJATA SUBHASH
PAMMAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4)
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD.
Date: 2023.02.23
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE
12:13:53 +0530
JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 20.09.2014 PASSED BY THE
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., COURT, HOSPET IN
C.C.NO.1521/2005.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 17.01.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
2
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant-complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hospete in C.C.No.1521/2005 dated 20.09.2014 whereby he has acquitted the accused-respondent herein for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied with them before the Court.
3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are as under:
The complainant has lodged a complaint against the accused on 27.10.2003 before Hon'ble Lokayuktha alleging that accused has colluded with excise contractors and causing loss to State Exchequer to the tune of Rs.42,00,000/-. It is alleged that on 3 23.11.2004 at 3 p.m. the Hon'ble Lokayuktha held an enquiry on the complaints given against the government officials at Sahakari Kalyana Mantapa, Hospete. When Hon'ble Lokayuktha has enquired about the complaint lodged by the complainant against the accused, the accused instead of giving answers, he has stated that the complainant is selling adulterated neera, he is putting Garb of Raith Sangha, he is an anti-social element and dangerous person to the society indulging in illegal activities. It is alleged that when the accused has made such allegations, number of persons were there in the public meeting and thereby it is alleged that accused has intentionally defamed the complainant in the eye of the public. It is also alleged that the same has been telecasted in the Karnataka Network channel (KCN) at 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. along with other channels and same is viewed by his friends who brought it to his notice. 4
4. Hence, the complainant has lodged a complaint in this regard against the accused. Thereafter the learned Magistrate has recorded the sworn statement and then issued process against the accused. The accused has appeared and was enlarged on bail.
5. Then the complainant was examined as PW.1 and he has also got examined 4 witnesses on his behalf at Exs.PW2 - PW5. He has also placed reliance on 7 documents marked at Exs.P.1 to 7.
6. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded to enable him to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the case of the prosecution. The case of accused is of total denial. However, he has produced certain documents to show that the complainant was involved in number 5 of excise criminal cases and he was prosecuted in nearly more than 13 matters.
7. After hearing the arguments and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate found that the statement of accused falls under exception and acquitted him.
8. Being aggrieved by this judgment of acquittal, the appellant is before this Court.
9. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent/ Amicus Curiae. Perused the records.
10. It is to be noted here that the respondent- accused is a Gazetted Government Officer and though he contested the criminal proceedings, before this Court he did not appear. However, this Court was kind enough to engage the services of Amicus Curiae 6 which was infact unwarranted. However, since the respondent-accused is a public servant, the fees of Amicus Curiae are required to be recovered from him only.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that this is the classic case of perversity and when enquiry was held in public place by seeking explanation under Section 10 of the Lokayuktha Act, the accused has defamed the complainant by making false allegations. He would contend that holding enquiry in a public place, participation of accused, complainant, telecasting and uttering of the words are undisputed and hence he would contend that the Trial Court has erroneously acquitted the accused and sought for setting aside the said impugned judgment of acquittal and prayed for convicting the accused.
12. Per contra, the Amicus Curiae would submit that the statement is based on records and 7 admittedly, there were two fractions in the Raita Sangha. It is further asserted that the complainant was involved in number of criminal cases and rowdy sheet was opened against him and the statement made by the accused was on the basis of records and hence it is asserted that he falls under exception and accordingly the Trial Court has considered this aspect and the judgment does not call for any interference.
13. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, now the following point would arise for my consideration;
a) Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court suffers from any perversity, arbitrariness and infirmity so as to call for any interference by this Court?
14. On perusal of the records, there is no serious dispute of the fact that on 23.11.2004 in Sahakari Kalyana Mantapa, Hospete, the Hon'ble 8 Lokayuktha was hearing public grievances against the Government Officials. It is also not under serious dispute that the complainant himself has submitted a complaint against the accused alleging that accused has caused huge loss to the exchequer by colluding with other excise contractors. When an explanation was sought in this regard by the Hon'ble Lokayuktha, accused is said to have given explanation asserting the character of the complainant.
15. At the outset the Hon'ble Lokayuktha ought not to have enquired the matter in a public place as the explanation ought to have sought under Section 10 of the Lokayuktha Act in writing and Government Officials cannot be humiliated in public. Further the complainant himself has made allegation regarding accused joining hands with other excise contractors by indulging in illegal activities and causing loss to exchequer. The complainant nowhere asserts that his 9 allegations are well founded. What is the base for these allegations is not at all forthcoming and complainant is not prepared to explain these aspects. There is no dispute regarding the accused uttering the specific words but his defence is that he has uttered these words only on the basis of the available records. Section 499 deals with defamation and it reads as under;
"499. 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 hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.
Eighth 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 10 person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.
Ninth Exception. - Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests. - It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good."
16. 8th and 9th exceptions establish that accusation or imputation made in good faith for protection of his or others interest is not defamation. Admittedly in the instant case, it is evident that the complainant was involved in more than 13 to 15 criminal cases and also he was prosecuted regarding selling adulterated neera and it is also evident that a rowdy sheet was opened against him. Hence, it is evident that whatever statement is made by the accused, it is based on documentary evidence and it is 11 not his personal opinion. But on the contrary, what is the evidence for complainant to make such an allegation against the accused regarding he joining hands with other excise contractors, is not at all forthcoming. Though it is argued that in criminal cases complainant was acquitted, no material evidence was placed to substantiate this aspect. The accusation-imputation made by the complainant is on the basis of records and hence it falls under exception 8th and 9th to Section 499.
17. Apart from that, there was no need for the Hon'ble Lokayuktha to seek such an explanation in presence of complainant itself that too in a public place. In fact, by seeking exception regarding the allegations, the accused being a public servant, his reputation was equally damaged by the complainant, when he has not substantiated the allegations made against him. The complainant is not prepared to 12 explain any of these aspects. Apart from that, when the allegations made in the complaint disclose that when they were made in the meeting, it was not heard by the complainant himself and his assertion is that, he got information from his friends, as the same was telecasted. How the complainant could not hear this aspect is not at all forthcoming, if at all this meeting was telecasted. Then the allegations made by the complainant pertaining to which explanation was sought is also telecasted and in that event the reputation of the accused was also damaged.
18. Hence, the allegation made by the complainant does not substantiate that the accused has done such imputation with an intention to defame him. Records disclose that the alleged imputations were based on documentary records. The learned Magistrate has considered all these aspects in detail and analyzed the oral as well as documentary 13 evidence in detail. At no stretch of imagination the judgment of acquittal is said to be erroneous or illegal so as to call for any interference. Under such circumstances the question of interference with said judgment of acquittal does not arise at all, as the learned Magistrate has considered all these aspects in detail and analyzed the evidence in detail with reference to exceptions under Section 499. Apart from that, when there is a benefit of acquittal in favour of the accused, the high standard of proof is expected from the complainant. There is no much evidence is forthcoming in this regard. Considering these facts and circumstances, there is no evidence to prove that the judgment suffers from any infirmity or arbitrariness so as to call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the point under consideration is answered in the negative and as such the appeal fails and accordingly I proceed to pass the following: 14
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed by confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hospete in C.C.No.1521/2005 dated 20.09.2014.
ii) The fees of the Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.3,000/-. The accused-
respondent herein is a public servant being a Gazetted Officer did not respond to the Court summons and the State is not supposed spend on him. Hence, the entire amount paid to the Amicus Curiae shall be recovered from the respondent by deducting the same from his salary 15 along with the additional costs of Rs.2,000/-.
iv) Send the copy of this judgment to the concerned department/ Home Secretary for deducting Rs.5,000/-
from the salary of the accused-
respondent.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SSP