Judgment Two accused faced a trial before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pollachi in C.C. No. 744 of 1977, for an offence under section 501, Indian Penal Code. Both of them were convicted for the said offence and A-1 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for four weeks, and A2 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for eight weeks. Against the order of the trial Court, P.W. 1, the complainant, has preferred this revision for enhancement of the sentence imposed on the accused. 2. Briefly, the case against the respondents, hereinafter referred to as A-1 and A-2 is as follows: A-1 is the Editor and Publisher of the daily ‘Malai Murasu’. A-2 is the Reporter. P.W. 1, the complainant is a citizen of Kinathukadavu village in Pollachi Taluk. He is a leading agriculturist of the locality and a well known figure. He owns lands in Solavapalayam and Vadapudhur villages. He contested from Kinathukadavu constituency in the by election to the State Legislature on the Janatha Party ticket. 3. On 14th October, 1977, a false and baseless and highly defamatory news item appeared in the daily, Malai Murasu. The said item is follows: The said news items as seen is published as though P.W. 1 was arrested by the Deputy Inspector of Police, charged and convicted for gambling by the Judicial Magistrate, Pollachi, in a case filed against him. It is the case of P.W. 1, the complainant, that he was not involved in any such gambling case nor was he arrested or convicted. This item of news was false and it was published with the main purpose of defaming P.W. 1. It has harmed his personal reputation and lowered his moral character and credit in the estimation of his partymen, friends and others. His prestige has been brought down in the eyes of the public. His status in the party has been lowered and he has suffered a great set back in his personal standing and in his political life. 4. P.W. 1 had examined P.Ws. 2 and 3 to show that they had read the defamatory news item published in ‘Malai Murasu’ and that they had enquired him about the same. P.W. 2 is a member of the National Seeds Corporation. 4. P.W. 1 had examined P.Ws. 2 and 3 to show that they had read the defamatory news item published in ‘Malai Murasu’ and that they had enquired him about the same. P.W. 2 is a member of the National Seeds Corporation. After seeing the news item, he contacted P.W. 1 over phone and enquired about the defamatory passage. Likewise, P. W. 3 also deposed to the fact that the said item has created a nutter in the ranks of the Janatha Party members. P.W. 1 has produced the item published in the paper which is marked as Exhibit P-1. Exhibit P-3 is the copy of the notice he sent to the accused and Exhibit P-4 is the acknowledgment for the accused having received the notice. 5. On the circumstances appearing on the side of the prosecution when the accused were questioned, A-1 stated that he was not acquainted with P.W. 1. On the relevant day, he was not in station. This particular item was not published knowing that it was false. Immediately it was known that what was published is not correct, they made amends by publishing a correction in the ‘Malai Murasu’ issue, dated 5th November, 1977 as stated by A-2 in his statement. They have examined one witness. D.W. 1 met P.W. 1 and tendered an apology for publishing what was not true in their paper on 14th October, 1977. The item of correction published on 5th November, 1977 is marked as Exhibit D-1. 6. There cannot be the slightest doubt that what the respondents published on 14th October, 1977 about P.W. 1 amounts to defamation. Both the accused have not denied the fact of such publication and they have also not taken the stand that what they have published is true. They admitted that what they have published about P.W. 1 on the relevant date is not correct and that was the reason why they made amends by publishing the correction in their issue of the paper, dated 5th November, 1977. They admitted that what they have published about P.W. 1 on the relevant date is not correct and that was the reason why they made amends by publishing the correction in their issue of the paper, dated 5th November, 1977. Even though the version of A-2, that he along with D.W. 1 had not met P.W. 1 in person and tendered an apology cannot be said to be proved to one’s satisfaction as the trial Court had found, the fact remains that they had realised what they have done on 14th October, 1977 was a mistake and they tried to make amends by publishing Exhibit D-1, dated 5th November, 1977. As a matter of fact both the accused were frank enough to say what they have published on 14th October, 1977 was not true. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court was perfectly justified in convicting both the accused for an offence under section 501, Indian Penal Code. 8. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner (P.W. 1, the complainant) contended that the sentence awarded to the accused errs on the side of leniency taking into consideration the fact that a highly respectable person’s reputation had been seriously damaged by the defamatory publication. He further contended even the correction published on 5th November, 1977 did not contain an apology. In these circumstances, this is eminently a fit case where the sentence imposed on the accused should be enhanced. 9. There is no doubt much force in what the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended. But, taking into consideration that this publication has taken place in the year, 1977, viz., five years before and the fact that immediately the accused tried to make amends by publishing a correction in their paper, I am of the view that the sentence at this stage need not be interfered with. The question of sentence is a matter of discretion. Of course, it has to be exercised in a judicial way. The sentence imposed by the trial Court should not ordinarily be interfered with, unless the facts and circumstances show the sentence is grossly inadequate. When the discretion has been properly exercised along the accepted judicial lines, it should not be interfered with, to the detriment of the accused, excepting for very strong reasons. The sentence imposed by the trial Court should not ordinarily be interfered with, unless the facts and circumstances show the sentence is grossly inadequate. When the discretion has been properly exercised along the accepted judicial lines, it should not be interfered with, to the detriment of the accused, excepting for very strong reasons. The High Court will not interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court, unless the sentence, as stated before, is grossly inadequate or a miscarriage of justice has occurred. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that the sentence given in this case is adequate and cannot be classified as grossly inadequate. Hence, the criminal revision for enhancing the sentence fails and is dismissed.