Delhi District Court
Cc No. 146/T Johny Looyal vs . S.C. Singhal U/S 500 Ipc Ps Subzi Mandi on 9 August, 2012
CC No. 146/T Johny Looyal Vs. S.C. Singhal U/S 500 IPC PS Subzi Mandi IN THE COURT OF SH. NEERAJ GAUR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEIII/NORTH, DELHI CC No. 146/T Johny Loyal Vs. S.C. Singhal U/s 500 IPC. PS: Subzi Mandi U. ID No. 02401R0320912002 Date of Institution : 28.11.2002 Name of the complainant : Johny Loyal @ Satwant Singh Loyal S/o Late Sh. Paramjit Singh Loyal, R/o 32A, Bath Street, Chiswick, London, U.K. Name and address of accused : S.C. Singhal, R/o "Asha Deep", B1/279, Janak Puri, New Delhi03. Offence complaint off : U/S 500 IPC Plea of guilt : Pleaded not guilty Final Order : Acquitted. Date of reserve for order : 09.08.2012 Date for announcing the order : 09.08.212 J u d g m e n t: Brief facts and pre trial proceedings (1) This is a complaint case for offence u/s 500 IPC. The allegations U. ID NO. 02401R0320912002 Page No. 1 of 12 CC No. 146/T Johny Looyal Vs. S.C. Singhal U/S 500 IPC PS Subzi Mandi made in the complaint are that after the death of his father, the complainant stepped into his shoe in various litigations with respect to the Hindu undivided properties. The accused, a lawyer by profession, was a tenant in one of the undivided property of the complainant at Sadar Bazar. With the passage of time, accused became a counsel of the opposite parties against whom the aforementioned litigations were pending. One case titled as Kenneth Loyal Vs. Vipin, Vinod and others was listed for hearing on 11.07.02 in the Court of Sh. S.S. Malhotra, the then Ld. Civil Judge. Three witnesses were examined in the morning session and matter was posted for post lunch session. During cross examination of complainant, the accused casted personal aspersions with a view to degrade and lower the image of the complainant. The Ld. Presiding Officer warned the accused to refrain from using obnoxious language. It is alleged that the personal remarks made by the accused were derogatory and defamatory and were made in the U. ID NO. 02401R0320912002 Page No. 2 of 12 CC No. 146/T Johny Looyal Vs. S.C. Singhal U/S 500 IPC PS Subzi Mandi presence of other lawyers and litigants. Such imputations degraded the social image of the complainant and resulted in imbalance of his mental equilibrium. It is averred that the complainant is enjoying a very good reputation in the society within India and abroad and running a restaurant in London. (2) The accused was summoned u/s 500 IPC vide order dated 17.02.2004. After due compliances, charge u/s 500 IPC was framed against him on 03.11.07 to which he pleaded not guilty. (3) After framing of notice, complainant examined four witnesses including himself. The statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC was thereafter, recorded and accused did not prefer to lead any defence evidence. Trial (4) I shall briefly touch upon the statement of witnesses as under: 4.1 Complainant examined himself as CW1 and inter alia deposed U. ID NO. 02401R0320912002 Page No. 3 of 12 CC No. 146/T Johny Looyal Vs. S.C. Singhal U/S 500 IPC PS Subzi Mandi the allegations made in his complaint and as discussed in para No. 1 of this Judgment. He categorically deposed that on 11.07.02, when he was deposing in the aforementioned case as a witness, the accused made the remarks "Tu to pakka sharabi hain, tu din me sharab pike yahan par aaya hain, tera baap bhi sharabi tha, tera poora khandan hi sharabi hain". 4.2 He further deposed that his Advocates Sh. Sunil Bhatt, Sh. Kulwant Singh and Sh. Pramod Sharma were present at that time. He also deposed that such remarks were made as accused was also a tenant in the property of father of the complainant at Sadar Bazar. He deposed that the Court was full of lawyers and other litigants and the remarks were made to insult the complainant in open public and to provoke the complainant. The legal notice sent by the complainant is marked as Ex.CW1/2. 4.3 Sh. Pramod Kumar Sharma, Advocate is examined as CW2 who U. ID NO. 02401R0320912002 Page No. 4 of 12 CC No. 146/T Johny Looyal Vs. S.C. Singhal U/S 500 IPC PS Subzi Mandi deposed that on 11.07.02, he was watching the aforementioned civil suit in the Court of Sh. S.S. Malhotra and during crossexamination, the accused made the afore quoted remarks . He also deposed that the counsel of the complainant objected to these comments and Ld. PO was also asked to intervene . He also deposed that the complainant was known to him for last 8 to 10 years and was having good reputation in the society. After the aforementioned episode, complainant felt humiliated and disgraced. 4.4 Sh. Kulwant Singh / CW3 deposed that he was one of the counsel of the complainant herein in the aforementioned case and on 11.07.02, the accused / the defending counsel made above quoted remarks during the crossexamination of the complainant. He also deposed that due to the remarks, complainant felt humiliated and defamed in front of his friends, lawyers and public at large. He also stated that he was distantly related to the complainant. U. ID NO. 02401R0320912002 Page No. 5 of 12 CC No. 146/T Johny Looyal Vs. S.C. Singhal U/S 500 IPC PS Subzi Mandi 4.5 CW4 Sh. Sukhbir Singh @ Rubi also deposed in the same lines as other witnesses while stating that he was also present in the Court when the alleged defamatory remarks were made. He also stated that he himself felt humiliated being the relative of the complainant. All the aforementioned witnesses were duly crossexamined by the accused. Facts in issue:
(a) Whether the accused, by words spoken in the Court during cross examination, made the imputations concerning the complainant?
(b) Whether the alleged imputations were made by the accused intending to harm or knowing or having reasons to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of the complainant?
(c) Whether the alleged imputations were defamatory as defined u/s 499 IPC?
(d) Whether or not the case falls within any of the exception appended to Section 499 IPC?
U. ID NO. 02401R0320912002 Page No. 6 of 12 CC No. 146/T Johny Looyal Vs. S.C. Singhal U/S 500 IPC PS Subzi Mandi Arguments and appreciation of evidence in the light of legal propositions
5. The complainant stopped appearing in this case and even the statement of accused was recorded in his absence. Accused addressed his arguments himself.
5.1 It was firstly argued by the accused that CWs2, 3 and 4 were all interested witnesses and they could not be relied upon. It is highlighted that CW2 stated in his crossexamination that it was Sh. Sunil Bhatt Adv. who was the counsel qua the complainant and he was accompanying the complainant whenever he was having any case in Delhi. He also could not tell about the gender of the Stenographer or the Reader of that Court. It is further pointed out in the cross examination of Cw3 that he stated that he filed Vakalatnama in the aforementioned suit. However, that Vakalatnama disappeared from the Court record. My attention is drawn to the document Ex.CW3/A1 which is the ordersheet dated 11.07.02. As per this ordersheet, Ld. U. ID NO. 02401R0320912002 Page No. 7 of 12 CC No. 146/T Johny Looyal Vs. S.C. Singhal U/S 500 IPC PS Subzi Mandi Counsel Sh. Sunil Bhatt was present along with Sh. Kulwant Singh, Adv. and they filed memo of appearance on that day itself. Accused argued that in case the Vakalatnama was already on record, memo of appearance would not have been filed on 11.07.2002. Regarding the alleged disappearance of the Vakalatnama, it is argued, that no complaint was made to the concerned Court.
5.2 Accused argued that CW2 and CW3 were deliberately employed just to mark their presence in the aforementioned Court on 11.07.02 so that the present false case could be filed and so that these persons could be examined to support a false charge.
5.3 Accused next argued that the Reader and Stenographer of the concerned Court were the best and most neutral witnesses but they were not examined. The witnesses examined by the complainant are false and interested witnesses who cannot be relied upon. 5.4 It is also argued that the accused was the defending counsel in the U. ID NO. 02401R0320912002 Page No. 8 of 12 CC No. 146/T Johny Looyal Vs. S.C. Singhal U/S 500 IPC PS Subzi Mandi cases filed by the complainant and the complainant always wanted to dissuade the accused from defending those cases. In furtherance of this motive, it was argued, this false case was filed by examining planted witnesses.
5.5 Accused further argued that in case the alleged imputations were made during the course proceedings, it would have become a matter of record. However, the Court record is entirely silent with respect to the alleged incident.
6. All the aforementioned arguments pertain to fact in issue No. (a). Although, the complainant as well as the witnesses stated that the imputations in question were made by the accused while he was conducting the crossexamination of the complainant. However, the ordersheet Ex.CW3/A1 is completely silent as regards any such incident. The examination of the complainant marked as Ex.CW1/D2 also do not reflect any such imputations being made. The alleged U. ID NO. 02401R0320912002 Page No. 9 of 12 CC No. 146/T Johny Looyal Vs. S.C. Singhal U/S 500 IPC PS Subzi Mandi imputations were made while the complainant was in the witness box. Therefore, it becomes important that the Court record should be looked into. But the Court record is silent in this regard. In these circumstances, it becomes difficult to rely upon the witnesses' version, ignoring the Court record. Accordingly, it could not be proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused made the alleged imputations in the alleged manner.
7. Accused lastly argued that no witness stated that the reputation of the complainant was adversely affected in their eyes after the alleged imputations were made.
8. This argument in fact pertain to the issue No. (c). In this regard, it would be appropriate to examine the applicability of explanation (4) of Section 499 IPC. As per this explanation, no imputation is said to be harm a person's reputation unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of U. ID NO. 02401R0320912002 Page No. 10 of 12 CC No. 146/T Johny Looyal Vs. S.C. Singhal U/S 500 IPC PS Subzi Mandi that person or lowers the credit of that person. So the alleged imputation, if at all made, was to be looked from the perspective of others. None of the complainant's witness stated that in their estimation the moral or intellectual character of the complainant was lowered. It implies that the alleged imputation did not affect the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of any person. Explanation (4) has used the word "lowers" implying thereby that the character of that person must in fact be lowered and not that the imputation has such a tendency. In absence of any positive evidence that moral or intellectual character of the complainant was even temporarily affected, the case cannot be covered u/s 499 IPC. The evidence available on record is insufficient to overcome the conditions laid down in explanation (4) to Section 499 IPC. Accordingly, no conviction can be recorded against the accused.
Conclusion
9. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the complainant could U. ID NO. 02401R0320912002 Page No. 11 of 12 CC No. 146/T Johny Looyal Vs. S.C. Singhal U/S 500 IPC PS Subzi Mandi not prove that the accused made the alleged imputations. He could also not prove that the alleged imputation in fact defamed him. The charge could not be proved. Accordingly, I acquit the accused S.C. Singhal for the offence U/S 500 IPC. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (Neeraj Gaur)
today i.e. 09.08.2012 MMIII/N, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
U. ID NO. 02401R0320912002 Page No. 12 of 12