Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 34 (HP)

KARTAR SINGH v. NIRMALA DEVI

2004-03-05

M.R.VERMA

body2004
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.—By this application, the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to appeal agaisnt the judgment dated 20.12.2002 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, in a complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the accusations under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present application are that in the year 1995 the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in B.B.M.B. It is alleged that on 10.2.1995, the respondents made a complaint against the petitioner to the Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh containing defamatory imputations against the petitioner and the same was forwarded to the concerned SHO. On the basis of such complaint proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Sections 107,151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dehra, which terminated in dismissal. It is further claimed in the complaint that during the course of the inquiry and trial the reputation of the petitioner was harmed in the eyes of general public and his colleagues as a copy of such complaint was received in his office as well. The learned trial Magistrate after putting the accusations to the accused under Section 500, IPC, examined three witnesses of the complainant who also tendered a document purporting to be the complaint in evidence. The respondents in their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and did not lead defence evidence. On consideration of the material brought on record, the learned trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the accusations were not proved and accordingly acquitted them. Hence, this petition by the petitioner. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. 4. The learned trial Magistrate had based his findings on the fact that the alleged complaint made by the respondents against the petitioner containing alleged defamatory remarks had not been proved. A perusal of the record reveals that a photocopy of such a complaint has been placed on record and has been marked. Similarly, the statements sought to be produced in evidence have been marked B, C, D, E and F\ No attempt whatsoever has been made to legally prove the contents of these documents and get them exhibited in evidence. A perusal of the record reveals that a photocopy of such a complaint has been placed on record and has been marked. Similarly, the statements sought to be produced in evidence have been marked B, C, D, E and F\ No attempt whatsoever has been made to legally prove the contents of these documents and get them exhibited in evidence. Therefore, these have not been relied upon by the learned trial Magistrate and rightly so. Thus no fault could be found in the act of the learned trial Magistrate in not relying on the unexhibited and unproved documents. 5. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the event of grant of leave to appeal the petitioner would take steps for leading additional evidence to prove the aforesaid documents in accordance with law and that earlier it could not be done because of the fault of the counsel representing the complainant. 6. This is not a case where the trial Magistrate has not given sufficient opportunities to the complainant to prove his case. On the contrary, it is a case where the learned trial Magistrate gave more than reasonable opportunity to the complainant to lead his evidence. It is evident from the zimini orders that after the accusations had been put to the accused the complainant was to produce his witnesses on 30.6.2000. He failed to do so and the case was listed for his evidence on 15.12.2000. Again the complainant failed to produce the witnesses. On this date, he submitted before the learned trial Magistrate that he had taken the necessary steps to summon his witnesses. However, there is nothing on record indicating that he had taken such steps. Still the matter was adjourned for recording his evidence for 5.4.2001. Again the complainant failed to produce his witnesses and the case was ordered to be listed on 29.8.2001 for his evidence on which date neither the complainant nor his witnesses were present. The complainant was then directed through his counsel to lead his evidence on 3.11.2001. Again the complainant failed to produce his witnesses. By this time, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate ought to have proceeded to close the case of the complainant for his consistent default in producing his evidence. However, he was unduly accommodated even thereafter and was given opportunities to lead his evidence without any sufficient reasons. Again the complainant failed to produce his witnesses. By this time, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate ought to have proceeded to close the case of the complainant for his consistent default in producing his evidence. However, he was unduly accommodated even thereafter and was given opportunities to lead his evidence without any sufficient reasons. Despite all these opportunities, if the complainant had failed to produce his evidence, he cannot claim that he must be granted leave to appeal so that he is now able, after pendency of over five years of his complaint, to lead the basic evidence in support of his case. 7. The above discussion leads me to the conclusion that this is not a case fit for grant of leave to appeal. 8. As a result this application is dismissed. -