Judgment :- (Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of acquittal passed in S.T.R.No.210 of 1996 dated 27.11.1995 on the file of the Sub Judge - cum - Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Mahe.) This appeal is filed by the complainant challenging the acquittal of the respondents/accused in S.T.R.No.210 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Judge - cum - Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Mahe, as per the judgment dated 27.11.1995. 2. The case of the appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') is that on 16.01.1994, A-1 distributed a hand bill titled as 'Madhusoodhana, where are you?' in Malayalam language to persons in different areas. According to him, the hand bill is intended to defame and lower the reputation of the complainant and those associated in the Renovation of Sastha Temple and the words used in the said hand bill described him as swallower of temple funds, cheating the people by prescribing as a Quack Physician and compared him with epic character like 'Dussadhana and Bhamasura'. According to him, it is highly defamatory to him as well as to the Temple Renovation Committee and its office bearers. Therefore, the complainant gave complaint Ex.P.3 to the Superintendent of Police, Mahe, against A-1 to A-3 alleging that A-1 distributed hand bills Exs.P.1 and P.2 containing defamatory matter at the instance and financial assistance of A-2 printed at Sree Devi Printers of A-3, which, according to the complainant, is highly defamatory to him as well as to the Temple Renovation Committee and its office bearers and the same was taken on file under Section 500 I.P.C. 3. In order to prove the case, the complainant examined himself as P.W.1, besides P.Ws.2 to 8 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-6. As against the same, no evidence was let in on the side of the respondents/accused either orally or documentary. 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 them by the complainant, they denied each and every circumstance put up against them as false and contrary to facts. 5. The trial Court, Considering such evidence let in on the side of the prosecution, found that A-1 to A-3 have not committed any offence of defamation within the meaning of Section 500 I.P.C. and accordingly, acquitted them. 5. The trial Court, Considering such evidence let in on the side of the prosecution, found that A-1 to A-3 have not committed any offence of defamation within the meaning of Section 500 I.P.C. and accordingly, acquitted them. 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 respondents/accused. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that the trial Court has not considered the evidence on the side of the complainant properly and as such, the acquittal of the accused is not proper. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that in support of complaint, P.Ws. 2 to 8 have given evidence about the defamation caused by A-1 to A-3 in printing and distributing hand bills on 16.1.1994 in which statements have been made defaming P.W.1 and also the members of the Renovation committee of the Temple. It is also argued by the learned counsel that the statements in the hand bills are to the effect and to give impression as if comparing the members of the Temple with evil characters from epic and intended to defame P.W.1 and other members of the Renovation Committee of the Temple. 8. It is reported that the second respondent / A-2 died during the pendency of the case and in support of the same, Death Certificate has been filed. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 / A-1 and A-3 argued that no case of defamation has been made out against them. He further submitted that the trial court, considering the fact that the complainant P.W.1 failed to establish that the hand bills Exs.P.1 and P.2 were printed and distributed by A-1 and A-3, rightly found that offence under section 500 I.P.C. is not made out against A-1 to A-3 and accordingly, acquitted them. As such, the judgment of the trial Court does not call for any interference. 10. Admittedly, A-3 is the owner of the Press 'Devi Printers' situate at Uduma, Palakkunnu at Kasargod District. As such, the judgment of the trial Court does not call for any interference. 10. Admittedly, A-3 is the owner of the Press 'Devi Printers' situate at Uduma, Palakkunnu at Kasargod District. It is also admitted that a search was made in the said Press as well as at the residence of A-3 but no manuscript or handbills were found either at the residence of A-3 or at Devi printers and no types also available at Devi Printers so as to indicate that the hand bills Exs.P.1 and P.2 were printed with the types available at the press of A-3. It is also clear that even in the complaint, the name of A-3 is not mentioned and it is only mentioned as Proprietor, Sree Devi Printers, Palakkunnu, Kasargod. P.W.7, who is the Principal of Ambika Arts College, Palakkunnu, is also not able to give the name of the owner of the press wherein it is alleged that A-3 was working. Admittedly, the Printing Press of A-3 'Devi Printers' is situate at Uduma, which is 1-1/2 Kms. away from Palakkunnu, and, therefore, A-1 could not have contacted A-3. That apart, it is evident from the deposition of P.W.7 and Ex.P.5, Attendance Register of staff members of Ambika Arts College, Palakkunnu from 1989 to 1990, that A-1 was a staff member of Ambika Arts College, Palakkunnu, from February 1989 to March 1989 and from June 1989 to July 1989 whereas in the complaint it is stated that A-1 was a Teacher previously employed at Palakkunnu Government High School but no evidence has been produced in support of the same. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.7 cannot be relied on to come to the conclusion that A-3 was present at Palakkunnu prior to 09.6.1994. Further, as rightly pointed out by the trial Court, in the complaint Ex.P.1, the name of the press is not mentioned as 'Devi Printers' but it is mentioned only as 'Sree Devi Printers'. 11. As regards the allegation levelled against A-1 and A-2 in the complaint that A-1 distributed leaflets entitled 'Madhusoodana, where are you?' in Malayalam on 16.01.1994 to many persons in different areas by declaring that he was doing it with the help and request of A-2, there is nothing to show that A-2 instructed A-1 to print or distribute the hand bills like Ex.P.1 or Ex.P.2. The trial Court rightly rejected the case of the complainant that Ex.P.1 was distributed by A-2. In the complaint Ex.P.3, P.W.1 has averred that P.W.3 had seen A-2 distributing the above said hand bills to some of the persons who came to the temple. The evidence of P.W.3 is that A-2 gave one paper resembling Ex.P.1 to P.W.4, which contained four pages, without printing the bottom portion of third page. Therefore, the vital contradiction about the unprinted bottom portion in Ex.P.1 from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 raises doubts in respect of their credibility. 12. P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 are friends of P.W.1. P.W.4 is a member of the Uthsava Committee of the Temple to which P.W.1 is the Secretary. There have been discrepancy between the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 with regard to the hand bills as to whether they were printed or not. P.W.5 has deposed in his evidence that on 16.01.1994 at 8 p.m., A-1 came to his house and handed over notices resembling Ex.P.1 with the bottom portion removed on its reverse side, which was evidenced by his brothers but they have not been examined to corroborate the evidence of P.W.5. P.W.5 has also not informed his neighbour P.W.1 about the handing over of hand bills like Ex.P.1 immediately after he received the same. Though it is stated in the complaint Ex.P.3 that A-1 distributed the printed hand bill, the complainant has not stated so in his evidence at the time of trial. The trial Court also held that there have been contradiction in the sworn statement of P.W.1 and the evidence given by him in the Court. Likewise, in the sworn-in-statement P.W.1 has deposed that one Purush was distributing the said defamatory hand bill but it is not stated so in the complaint. It is clear that the defamation alleged is in respect of the office bearers of the Renovation Committee of the Temple and as such, the complaint itself is not maintainable. 13. The translation of Ex.P.2 reads that the festival celebration committee under the Vice Chairmanship of the respected Doctor and Temple committee in the fist of Apothocary Quack found explaining by threatening the residents of the neighbourhood, which would show that the temple committee is under the grip of 'quack' who prepares and sells medicines. 13. The translation of Ex.P.2 reads that the festival celebration committee under the Vice Chairmanship of the respected Doctor and Temple committee in the fist of Apothocary Quack found explaining by threatening the residents of the neighbourhood, which would show that the temple committee is under the grip of 'quack' who prepares and sells medicines. But P.W.1 has admitted in his private complaint that he was running only a distributing concern of Ayurvedic medicines of 'Oushad Ayurvedic Products' and he was not preparing the medicines which he sells as mentioned in Exs.P.1 and P.2. Ex.P.2 refers about the persons who objected to a residential house of Lakshmy Amma in the vicinity of the temple and prays Lord Krishna to lead and teach those followers who are not knowing the object of putting sandle paste and decorating their foreheads, breasts, necks, elbows etc. with sandal paste. Therefore, it is clear that the above said description is not applicable to P.W.1. Similarly, it is stated in Ex.P.2 that the medicine Karmayoga is available at the shop called 'Oushad' at Erattapilackool and the name of the medical shop of P.W.1 is 'Oushad'. But it is only a distribution of Oushad Ayurvedic Products'. Therefore, the said reference is also not against him. The mentioning in Ex.P.2 "that lazy persons will sandle paste sprayed on their hands as snatching the wealth of neighbours and where was Lord Krishna when this evil minded Dussana were removing the green sarees of the coconut trees of others" also will not refer to P.W.1 as derober of women folk. 14. The trial Court, considering all these aspects and the evidence in proper perspective, held that no case of defamation is made out against the accused 1 to 3 and accordingly, acquitted A-1 to A-3, which does not call for any interference. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed in respect of A-1 and A-3 and the judgment dated 27.11.1995 made in S.T.R.No.210 of 1996 by the Sub Judge-cum-Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate at Mahe is confirmed. Since the second respondent / Accused died during the pendency of the case, the appeal against A-2 is dismissed as abated.