Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 233 (MAD)

P. Rangaraj v. K. Arunan, Editor

2006-02-02

S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN

body2006
Judgment :- (Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of acquittal passed in C.C.No.32 of 1996 dated 17.7.1997 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI Court, Coimbatore.) This appeal is filed by the complainant challenging the acquittal of the respondent/accused in C.C.No.32 of 1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI Court, Coimbatore, as per the judgment dated 17.7.1997. 2. The case of the appellant/complainant is that the accused published defamatory imputations in page No.16 of the magazine "Arunan" Ex.P-1 dated 5.11.1995 about the complainant. The publication was seen by the complainant on 15.11.1995. In the publication, the character of the complainant was assassinated and also stated that the complainant swindled the money from the company and assaulted the workmen. After publication, the complainant(P.W.1) was looked down by P.Ws.2 to 4. The complainant(P.W.1) caused notice Ex.P-2 dated 21.12.1995. It was returned unserved under Ex.P-3. Therefore, the complaint (Ex.P-1) was filed, which was taken on file under Section 499 I.P.C. 3. In order to prove that in view of the defamatory publication, the reputation of the complainant has been harmed, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1, besides P.Ws.2 to 4 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-3. On the side of the accused D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.D-1 to D-7 were marked. 4. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against him by the complainant, he accepted the publication and denied the other allegations. 5. Considering such evidence, the Judicial Magistrate, taking into consideration the accused made such publication against the complainant, however, recorded finding that such publication comes under the First Exception to Section 499 I.P.C., viz., imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published and as such, the complainant has not made out the case for punishing the accused under Section 500 I.P.C. The said judgment is challenged in this appeal by the complainant. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused. 7. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant argued that admittedly the publication was made by the respondent/accused in the magazine "Arunan" under Ex.P-1 and despite the notice caused under Ex.P-2, the accused did not offer his excuse for making such publication, the complaint was filed and the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and through other witnesses has clearly established that the accused has committed the offence under Section 499 I.P.C., in view of the fact that it has not been proved by the accused that such imputation made by way of publication is true, more particularly, in respect of the publication that the alleged deceit committed by the complainant. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent/accused in supporting the judgment of the trial Court argued that the publication made in Ex.P-1 and imputation made to the complainant are true and as such, such publication comes within the First Exception to Section 499 I.P.C. 9. It is seen from Ex.P-1 that the following publication admittedly has been made by the accused against the complainant:- 10. As regards the first passage which is relating to the administration of the company, in which company the complainant was working as Assistant General Manager, it cannot be said that such passage relates to the complainant. 11. As regards the second passage the complainant and the Production Co-ordinator Yuvaraj adopt divide and rule policy, it is the evidence let in through D.W.1 and D.W.2 that by engaging rowdies, viz., Swaminathan and Anand Babu, the worker Manisekar (D.W.4) was beaten by them, instigated by the complainant and when Devarajlal demanded the rights, the rowdy Swaminathn tried to beat him and one worker Innachimuthu was locked in the toilet of the company and he was also beaten by the said rowdies in the toilet. In view of such act, even assuming true, it cannot be construed as divide and rule policy adopted by the complainant along with the Production Co-Ordinator Yuvaraj. Therefore, such publication made is clearly defamatory. 12. As regards the third passage also there is no evidence on the side of the accused that in view of deceit committed by the complainant and his group of people, the properties of the company will be destroyed. Therefore, such publication made is clearly defamatory. 12. As regards the third passage also there is no evidence on the side of the accused that in view of deceit committed by the complainant and his group of people, the properties of the company will be destroyed. There is nothing to show and no evidence let in on the side of the respondent/accused as to what are the deceit committed by the complainant for causing loss to the properties of the company. Hence the publication of the third passage also defamatory and therefore both the said second and third passages do not come under the First Exception to Section 499 I.P.C. and such passages amount to defamation within the meaning of Section 499 I.P.C. The trial Court has not considered all these aspects properly on the facts of the case. It is clear that the accused has committed defamation within the meaning of Section 499 I.P.C. by effecting publication of the above second and third passages in the magazine "Arunan" and the complainant has made out the case by clearly establishing that the accused has committed the offence under Section 499 I.P.C. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 17.7.1997 made in C.C.No.32 of 1996 by the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore is set aside. Inasmuch as the said publication was effected as early as in 1995 and after enquiry acquitted in 1997 and considering the long lapse of period since the respondent/accused found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 499 I.P.C., fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) is imposed on the accused, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The accused is permitted to pay the above fine amount in two weeks in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Coimbatore to the credit of C.C.No.32 of 1996.