M. M. MIRDHE, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner who was the complainant in the trial Court under Ss. 397 and 401, Cr. P. C. to enhance the sentence awarded by the Principal Munsiff and J. M. F. C. Mangalore, to the respondent in C. C. No. 1661 of 1986 dated 4-10-1990. ( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent fully and perused the records of the case. ( 3 ) THE facts of the prosecution case are as follows :- that in the year 1985 the petitioner-complainant was working as Superintendent of Excise, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore. He alleged that he hails from a very highly respectable, educated and business family of Gokak in the District of Belgaum. He was a Class I Officer in the Karnataka Excise Department. The respondent was the Editor, Printer and Publisher of Kannada Weekly called "amrit Kannad Vara Patrike", at Golikatta Bazar, Bunder, Mangalore-1. The respondent published an article in his paper "amrit Kannada Vara Patrike" dated 28-7-1985 making defamatory allegations against the petitioner. Therefore, he filed a complaint. The learned Magistrate, after assessing the evidence on record and after hearing both sides convicted the respondent u/s. 255 (2), Cr. P. C. of the offence punishable under S. 501, IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. So far as the conviction of the respondent for the offence under S. 501, IPC is concerned, the respondent has not preferred any appeal against the same. Therefore, the conviction is not liable to be disturbed. It is the petitioner who was the complainant in the trial Court and who is aggrieved by the sentence awarded to the respondent on the ground that it is very lenient has preferred this Revision Petition. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of defamation made and also the conduct of the respondent in not making amends for his wrong by not tendering any apology but on the other hand taking up a stand that he did not publish that paper, the sentence awarded by the trial Court to the respondent is very lenient. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the sentence awarded to the respondent is just and proper and there are no grounds to enhance it and that the petitioner was a public servant and the criticism made by the respondent was in connection with his work and, therefore, there was some justification for the respondent to write that article and even otherwise a public servant cannot be over sensitive to the criticism levelled against him by a journalist. He also submitted that seven years have elapsed since the date of the commission of the offence and it will not be just and proper to enhance the sentence at this point of time. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a number of rulings. He relied on 1981 (1) Karnataka LJ Item No. 20 of Short Notes of Cases wherein it has been held that S. 401 (3), Cr. P. C. dealing with the High Court's powers in revision, restricted the power conferred on the High Court under S. 386, Cr. P. C. The net effect of the provisions was that in the criminal revision the High Court cannot reverse the finding of acquittal. The question involved in this case is not of reversing of a finding of acquittal. But the question is the sentence awarded to the respondent is to be enhanced. This ruling in no way throws any light on the points involved in this case. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent also relied on Bansi Lal v. Laxman Singh AIR 1986 SC 1721 : (1986 Cri LJ 1603) wherein it has been held as follows"it is only in glaring cases of injustice resulting from some violation of fundamental principles of law by the trial Court, that the High Court is empowered to set aside the order of the acquittal and direct a retrial of the acquitted accused. From the very nature of this power it should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. The mere circumstance that a finding of fact recorded by the trial Court may in the opinion of the High Court be wrong, will not justify the setting aside of the order of acquittal and directing a retrial of the accused. From the very nature of this power it should be exercised sparingly and with great care and caution. The mere circumstance that a finding of fact recorded by the trial Court may in the opinion of the High Court be wrong, will not justify the setting aside of the order of acquittal and directing a retrial of the accused. Even in an appeal the Appellate Court would not be justified in interfering with an acquittal merely because it was inclined to differ, from the findings of fact reached by the trial Court on the appreciation of the evidence. The revisional power of the High Court is much more restricted in its scope. Delhi High Court's decision, reversed. "the ruling is on the point of setting aside the order of acquittal, which is not the point involved in this case. Therefore, this ruling will not come to the aid of the respondent in this case. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent relied on State of Orissa v. Nakula Sahu, AIR 1979 SC 663 : (1979 Cri LJ 594) wherein the scope of revisional powers of the High Court have been discussed. In that ruling the Supreme Court had held that normally the jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 439, Cr. P. C. is to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law which has consequently resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice. Their Lordships were dealing with S. 439, Cr. P. C. before its amendment. On the basis of this ruling, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there are no grounds to exercise revisional jurisdiction by the High Court in this case. In that case, the High Court accepted the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the Sessions Judge when there was no error of fact or of law committed by those Courts in arriving at those concurrent findings. In that context, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the High Court ought not to have exercised its revisional jurisdiction under S. 439, Cr. P. C. This ruling will also not come to the aid of the respondent in this case. ( 8 ) SECTION 397, Cr. In that context, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the High Court ought not to have exercised its revisional jurisdiction under S. 439, Cr. P. C. This ruling will also not come to the aid of the respondent in this case. ( 8 ) SECTION 397, Cr. P. C. empowers the High Court to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court. This Section itself is very clear that the High Court ha got the revisional powers to call for the records and satisfy itself as to the correctness or propriety of any sentence passed by the Court inferior to it. In this revision, the Court is required to find out whether the sentence awarded by the trial Court is proper and correct. Therefore, under S. 397, Cr. P. C. the High Court is empowered to examine the correctness and propriety of the sentence awarded by the trial Court. ( 9 ) THE respondent has been convicted for an offence punishable under S. 501, IPC. on the ground that tie published an article in the paper and thereby defamed the petitioner. The conviction of the respondent for the said offence is not liable to be disturbed in view of the fact that no appeal has been preferred by the respondent. The respondent made the following allegations against the petitioner. (Matter in vernacular, omitted.) the allegations made by the respondent against the petitioner who was a Class I Officer in the Karnataka State are not only highly defamatory but also vexatious as the respondent has not been able to prove the truth of the allegations made by him. In order to see whether the sentence awarded by the trial Court to the respondent is correct or not, the Court will have to see the nature of the defamatory allegations made by the respondent and the conduct of the respondent in this regard. It cannot be disputed that the allegations made by the respondent against the petitioner are highly defamatory. The petitioner gave notice to the respondent prior to the filing of his complaint. The respondent did not reply to it. It cannot be disputed that the allegations made by the respondent against the petitioner are highly defamatory. The petitioner gave notice to the respondent prior to the filing of his complaint. The respondent did not reply to it. During the trial, he took up a stand that he was not the author of that article itself and he had not published it. He took up a false stand in respect of a highly defamatory article published by him against the petitioner. Till he was convicted, the respondent has not come forward with any amends on his part by tendering unqualified apology to the petitioner for defaming him. This conduct of the respondent is very much material in deciding whether the sentence awarded to the respondent is proper and correct or not. The allegations made by the respondent are sure to cause cracks in the reputation enjoyed by the petitioner. Character is what a person is. Reputation is what others think of him. Reputation is one of the most valuable positions of a person and no one can be deprived of that reputation with-out justification in law. Words can be as dangerous as explosive. Words are the means through which man expresses himself. Through words, man creates or destroys. Through words, man loves and hates. Through words, man marries and divorces. Through words, man starts wars and achieves peace. Through words, man creates happiness or creates misery not only in his life but in the life of others also in the world. That is why the law in its wisdom has controlled the use of the words by the persons in the form of various laws including the law prohibiting defamation. The wounds caused by a sword may heal, but some wounds caused by words never heal. When defamatory allegations are made against a person, he is likely to lose respect not only of his colleagues with whom he works and the members of the society where he moves but also his wife and children with whom he lives. Making allegations of serious nature as want of character is a very serious nature and such allegations may even lead one spouse to doubt the fidelity of that person and the children would lose their respect for that person. All these are the consequences that flow from making defamatory allegations against a person. Making allegations of serious nature as want of character is a very serious nature and such allegations may even lead one spouse to doubt the fidelity of that person and the children would lose their respect for that person. All these are the consequences that flow from making defamatory allegations against a person. Besides all these repercussions of defamatory allegations on the life and circumstances of the person who is defamed, the person defamed himself may be spending agonising days and sleepless nights. The Court that sentences the accused after his guilt for defamation is proved is required to take into consideration all these things to understand the agony of a man who is unjustifiably defamed and to visualise his suffering. A Judge is not required to have the imagination of a Mitton or a Shakespeare. But a Judge is required to have the sensitivity to understand the plight of not only the accused involved in a crime but also the victim of the crime. Justice is to be done not only to the accused but also to the victim of the crime. These are the factors that are required to be considered while deciding the question as to what is the sentence to be awarded to an accused in such a case. ( 10 ) THE respondent was working as a journalist. He was holding a responsible position. He appears to be an educated man. Therefore, there is more responsibility on the respondent in making proper use of his pen. Words are weapons. In these days, the newspapers, radios and T. V. have spread to every nook and corner of the society. The persons who use words written or spoken or use in representation in presenting their ideas in these mediate of communication must do it with a full sense of responsibility and if they misuse the liberty given to them, they are also liable to answer for the consequences of their acts of misusing their words or representations in these mediate. Viewing in this context, the purpose of sentence in such cases is to reform the accused so as to make the likeminded persons deter from doing any similar acts. ( 11 ) IN Jagadish B. Rao v. State 1974 Cri LJ 1358 the Goa, Daman and Diu Judicial Commissioner's Court has observed as follows :-"16. Viewing in this context, the purpose of sentence in such cases is to reform the accused so as to make the likeminded persons deter from doing any similar acts. ( 11 ) IN Jagadish B. Rao v. State 1974 Cri LJ 1358 the Goa, Daman and Diu Judicial Commissioner's Court has observed as follows :-"16. Assassination of character has been considered by Courts from times immemorial as no less serious than assassination of persons because character of a person is one of the most valuable things that a person possesses. The conduct of the accused person subsequent to the publication of libel, before and during the trial may also have to be taken into consideration'" ( 12 ) IN Saheb Singh Mehra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1451 the Supreme Court has observed as followsdict - The press has great powers in impressing the minds of the people and it is essential that persons responsible for publishing anything in newspapers should take good care before publishing anything which tends to harm the reputation of a person. Reckless comments are to be avoided. When one is proved to have made defamatory comments with an ulterior motive and without the least justification motivated by self interest, he deserves a deterrent sentence. "in M. Somasekhar v. S. A. Subbaraju, ILR 1989 Karnataka 738 : (1989 Cri LJ 1686) this Court has held that the punishment of sentencing the accused in that case, for a period of one month and also a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default to undergo imprisonment for a further period of two months oh proof of his guilt for the offence under S. 500, IPC was too lenient a punishment. Taking into consideration the nature of the defamation made by the respondent, his conduct in not offering apology and the status of the parties involved in the case i. e. the complainant is a Class I Officer in Karnataka Excise Department and the respondent was an educated responsible journalist, the sentence of Rs. 1,000/- awarded by the trial Court can be termed only a fleabite sentence. 1,000/- awarded by the trial Court can be termed only a fleabite sentence. ( 13 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent relied on Kartar Singh v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 541 : (1956 Cri LJ 945) wherein his Lordship of the Supreme Court has quoted Seymour v. Butter Worth (1862) 2 F and F 372 as follows :-"whoever fills a public position renders himself open thereto. He must accept an attack as a necessary, though unpleasant, appendage to his office. "his Lordships of the Supreme Court have also quoted Kelley v. Sherlock (1866) 1 QB 686. His Lordship has observed as follows :-"public men in such positions may as well think it worth their while to ignore such vulgar criticisms and abuses hurled against them rather than give an importance to the same by prosecuting the persons responsible for the same. "13-A. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that in the light of these observations of the Supreme Court, there is no reason for the petitioner to feel aggrieved on account of the sentence awarded to the respondent. The facts in the case before the Supreme Court were that the accused hurled some abuses against the Minister of the State. In that context, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the persons who fill up public positions must accept an attack as a necessary, though unpleasant, appendage to that office. The slogans were shouted against the Ministers in that case in a procession. The facts of that case are altogether different from the facts of this case. The observations made by his Lordship Justice Bhagwati in that case will have to be taken in the context of facts of that case and those observations should not lead to the inference that a person occupying a public office should never prosecute a person who defames him without any jurisdiction. ( 14 ) IN Sahib Singh Mehra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1451 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused on his conviction and sentencing him for the offence punishable under S. 500, IPC and confirmed the sentence of S. I. for six months and fine of Rs. 200/ -. ( 14 ) IN Sahib Singh Mehra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1451 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused on his conviction and sentencing him for the offence punishable under S. 500, IPC and confirmed the sentence of S. I. for six months and fine of Rs. 200/ -. Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that there are no grounds for enhancing the sentence awarded to the respondent on the ground that if he has defamed he has defamed a public servant is not acceptable. ( 15 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the offence is committed in the year 1985 and now we are in the year 1992, and nearly 7 years have elapsed after the commission of the offence and at this point of time there is no justification for enhancing the sentence. The date of publication of the defamatory article is 28-7-1985 and the date of conviction of the respondent is 4-10-1990. The petitioner has filed this Revision petition on 2-1-1991 and it came to be admitted on 21-1-1991. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on Narain Prasad v. The State of Rajasthan, AIR 1978 Raj 162 wherein the Rajasthan High Court held that the pendency of criminal proceedings for such a long time amounted to harassment to the accused and that the State Government had not challenged the quantum of sentence and, therefore, there were no grounds to enhance the sentence of the accused in that case. One of the grounds on which their Lordships refused to enhance the sentence in that case was that the enhancement of sentence will need a notice to the accused. The facts of that case are different from the facts of this case. Where the accused has not made any amends for the criminal act done by him, mere delay cannot be a ground not to enhance the sentence. ( 16 ) TAKING into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the defamatory statements made by the respondent against the petitioner, the position of the petitioner and the respondent in the society and the conduct of the respondent after the commission of the offence, the sentence of mere fine awarded to the respondent is only a flea bite sentence and it requires to be enhanced. ( 17 ) HENCE, I proceed to pass the following order:- the Revision Petition is allowed. The sentence awarded to the respondent is modified and the respondent is sentenced to R. I. for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to S. I. for one month. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .