Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. It was contended that the respondent/complainant was for some time an office bearer of the society; he was vice President, till October, 1994. During his tenure, for a brief while, when the respondent was elected as Vice Chairman in June, 1994, (and resigned due to disgust in October, 1994) he noticed that the managing committee of the society persistently failed to get the accounts audited and retrieve missing documents, which were pointed out in the Special Audit Report that led to appointment of an Administrator for getting the audit done. Despite appointment of 5 administrators after 16.3.1998, accounts were left unaudited. Counsel contended that the letter written to Omesh Sehgal could not be treated as defamatory. Firstly, the letter was not proved and that it merely mentions that the petitioner and Ors. were adopting delaying tactics and evading internal audit. As far as the so-called leaflet was concerned the petitioner had no role in it -even no attempt was made to connect him with it. It was also submitted that what is stated as a complaint dated 24.1.2001 is a copy of the notice under Section 160 Cr. P.C. issued by the P.S. Mayur Vihar. That under no circumstances can be said to contain defamatory imputations. The slander dated 4.12.2001, allegedly recording misappropriation and allegation of the complainant outraging modesty of the complainant was again unproved. It was contended that in fact the complainant/petitioner had been implicated in a criminal case and was issued with summons/notice by the criminal court which was later set aside on revision, on 1.3.2001, on the ground of limitation.