Vinod Dattatray Samel v. Ravajibhai M. Patel — 1993 DIGILAW 251 (BOM)

JUDGMENT (ORAL) Ashok Agarwal, J. - Appellant is the original complainant. He has preferred the present appeal seeking to challenge an order of acquittal passed on the 25th of April, 1986 by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivli, Bombay in Criminal Case No. 103/S of 1983. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the original accused. Respondent No. 3 is the State of Maharashtra. By the impugned order the accused have been acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Proceedings in the trial Court were initiated on the basis of a private complaint which was filed in the Court on the 18th of July, 1983. It was the case of the prosecution, in short, that the complainant was a senior employee of M/s. Eastern Ceramics Limited, Goregaon, Bombay, drawing a salary of Rs. 1,550/- per month. Accused No. 1 was the Managing Director and accused No. 2 was the company Secretary of the said M/s. Eastern Ceramics Limited. The accused were not happy with the complainant because he was Secretary of the employees union. In the past i.e., in the year 1979, the services of the complainant were terminated. The complainant filed a complaint against the company alleging unfair labour practice. The complainant succeeded and the company had to allow him to resume his duties. 3. As far as the instant complaint is concerned the complainant alleged that on 16th of April, 1983 while he was on duty, P.W. 3 Madhukar Dadasheb Kadam, a personal Manager of the company, informed him that the accused No. 1 was demanding the resignation of the Complainant on the ground that the complainant was passing out confident of information and matters of the company to outsiders. The complainant was requested to resign and in case he did not, he would be dismissed from service. The complainant thereupon approached the accused No. 1 in his cabin. At that time Shri Kadam had accompanied him. Complainant asked accused No. 1, about the allegation which Shri Kadam had mentioned. Thereupon accused No. 1 confirmed the same and reiterated that the complainant had been passing out confidential matters of the company to outsiders and that the complainant could not be trusted and, therefore the complainant was liable for dismissal. At that time Shri Kadam had accompanied him. Complainant asked accused No. 1, about the allegation which Shri Kadam had mentioned. Thereupon accused No. 1 confirmed the same and reiterated that the complainant had been passing out confidential matters of the company to outsiders and that the complainant could not be trusted and, therefore the complainant was liable for dismissal. Accused No. 1 told the complainant that since the complainant had put in 15 years of service the company would not dismiss him if he voluntary resigned. By an order, passed on the very day i.e. 16th of April, 1983 the accused No. 1 terminated the services of the complainant with immediate effect. According to the complainant, on that day when he came out of the Cabin of accused No. 1 many workers who had gathered, they were informed by Shri Kadam that the complainant was passing out confidential matters of the company to outsiders. 4. According to the complainant, the accused had made above imputations knowing, for having reason to believe that the same would harm the reputation of the complainant and thereby defamed him. 5. The complainant challenged the order of termination of his services by filing yet another complaint being ULP No. 50 of 1983. In the complaint accused No. 2 filed two affidavits justifying the termination on the ground that the complainant was passing out confidential matters and secrets of the company to outsiders. According to the complainant, the said allegation had lowered him in the esteem of others. The accused were, therefore guilty of defecation and were liable to be punished under Section 500 of the, Indian Penal Code. 6. At the trial, the complainant examined himself as P.W. 1. He examined P.W. 2 Jamadar Kharat and P.W. 3 Madhukar Kadam. On consideration of the above evidence, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit the accused. Taking exception to the same, the complainant has preferred the present appeal. 7. I have heard Miss, Rumana Bagdadi who has strenuously urged that the impugned order of acquittal is unjustified on the material on record. According to her, the order of acquittal deserves to be set aside and the accused deserve to be convicted and sentenced according to law. Mr. 7. I have heard Miss, Rumana Bagdadi who has strenuously urged that the impugned order of acquittal is unjustified on the material on record. According to her, the order of acquittal deserves to be set aside and the accused deserve to be convicted and sentenced according to law. Mr. Washi, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused, has adopted the reasons which were set up by the learned Magistrate and has supported the order of acquittal. Miss. Pingulkar, the learned Public Prosecutor has also supported the order of acquittal. Having heard the rival contentions advanced before me, in my judgment, this is not a fit case to interfere with an order of acquittal. The incident in question relates back to over ten years. The incident has occurred on the 19th April, 1983 when the services of the complainant were terminated. It is to be noted that in the letter of termination no allegations are made that the complainant was passing out the secrets of the company to outsiders. The letter is a simple order of termination. It is only when the complainant lodged a complaint alleging unfair labour practice, that the company was required to justify the order of termination. This was done by filing affidavits in the labour court. The complaint came to be dismissed by an order passed on the 3OtbofNovember, 1983. As far as the accused are concerned, they have contended that the company had lost confidence in the complainant as he was passing .out secrets of the company to outsiders. This was what the company had stated in the complaint filed in the labour court. In my view, there is nothing on record to show that the company, while making the above allegations, was not acting bona fide. The accused were acting in the interest of the company. They pointed out the objectionable facts of the complainant when they came to their notice. They were, in the circumstances justified in bringing the allegations to the notice of the complainant and thereafter proceeding to terminate his services. The allegations was not given any undue publicity and was not disclosed to any person unconnected with the company to any unauthorised person. The imputation was made in the presence of the complainant as also before the Court that too for the purpose of justifying the company's action of termination. 8. The allegations was not given any undue publicity and was not disclosed to any person unconnected with the company to any unauthorised person. The imputation was made in the presence of the complainant as also before the Court that too for the purpose of justifying the company's action of termination. 8. As far as the oral evidence on record is concerned, the complainant has deposed in terms of his complaint, which I have already narrated. His evidence is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 3 Madhukar Kadam. Kadam refused to support the prosecution in toto and he was cross-examined by the learned Advocate for the Complainant. In cross examination he admitted that he had resigned his job in the company and received all dues from the company after his resignation. He further denied that on the date in question he told the complainant that the accused No. 1 was calling him in cabin and after that accused No. 1 demanded the resignation from the complainant. Kadam, therefore, does not further the case of prosecution. He has not deposed to the imputations alleged by the accused against the complainant. 9. We then have the evidence of P.W. 2 Jamadar Kharat. According to Kharat, complainant was known to him as a honest and straightforward officer of the company and that he was lowered in his esteem after he was informed of the imputation that the complainant was passing out secrets of the company to out-siders. This is all the evidence on record. 10. The question for consideration is whether an offence of defamation can be said to have been made out. Even if the allegation set up by the complainant is held to be proved, in my view, it will be unsafe to conclude that the prosecution has brought home the guilt against the accused. It cannot be overlooked that the complainant was an employee and the accused were his employers. The accused were in a position of authority and were entitled to comment on the conduct of complainant as long as the same was done bona fide and in good faith. The imputation was made for protection of interest of the company. The imputations were made before a Court which was seized with the disputes in regard to the termination of the services of the complainant. The imputation was made for protection of interest of the company. The imputations were made before a Court which was seized with the disputes in regard to the termination of the services of the complainant. The imputations were made in good "faith and were made before a Judge for the purpose of justifying the order of termination. The accused, therefore, would be covered by exceptions 7, 8 and 9 of Section 499 I.P.C. and will, therefore, not be guilty of the offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. In any event, even if a view different from the one which has been expressed by the trial Court may be possible, this is not a fit case for interference in the impugned order of acquittal. 11. For the foregoing reasons the appeal fails. The impugned Judgment and order of acquittal dated 25th AP.94 1986 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 24th Court, Borivli, Bombay, in Criminal Case No. 103/S of1983 is maintained. Appeal dismissed.