Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 809 (AP)

P. SURYANARAYANA RAJU v. STATE OF A. P.

2007-08-27

G.YETHIRAJULU

body2007
( 1 ) CRL. R. C. NO. 1196 of 2000 was preferred by A-1 to A-4, A-6 and A-7 and crl. R. C. No. 247 of 2001 was preferred by the complainant in C. C. No. 370 of 1997 on the file of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. ( 2 ) SINCE both the Revision Cases arose out of the Judgment in the same calendar Case, both the Revisions are clubbed and the common Judgment is delivered. ( 3 ) A private complaint has been filed by the complainant for the offence under Section 500 of IPC against 8 persons alleging that they committed offence on 02-11-1994. The Court took cognizance of the offence and during the pendency of the matter, A-5 was acquitted under Section 257 of Cr. P. C. on 09-02-1996. A-8 is an Association in which the other accused were members, therefore, the trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted A-1 to A-4, A-6 and A-7 for the offence under Section 500 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentences, A-1 to A-4, A-6 and A-7 preferred Crl. A. No. 70 of 1998 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. The learned Sessions Judge, while confirming the conviction imposed by the trial Court, modified the sentence by setting aside the simple imprisonment of six months on each accused and enhancing the fine amount of Rs. 500/- imposed by the trial Court to rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of the enhanced fine amount, each of the accused were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Being aggrieved by the modification of the sentence ordered by the Appellate Court, the complainant preferred Crl. R. C. No. 247 of 2001 seeking enhancement of the sentence and A-1 to A-4, A-6 and A-7 preferred Crl. R. C. No. 1196 of 2000 challenging the conviction and the sentence of fine imposed on them and requested to acquit them by setting aside the conviction and sentences imposed on them. ( 4 ) THE complainant alleged that he was the Chief Executive of the District cooperative Central Bank, Visakhapatnam and acted as an intermediary among the government, Board of Directors and the Employees. ( 4 ) THE complainant alleged that he was the Chief Executive of the District cooperative Central Bank, Visakhapatnam and acted as an intermediary among the government, Board of Directors and the Employees. He proved his excellence by improving the business of the bank by modernizing ten branches by providing gold loan facilities and safe locker deposit facility and improved the deposits from 29 crores to 50 crores and disbursement of loans from 30 crores to 80 crores by increasing the recovery of loans from 60% to 83%. He further contended that A-1 to A-7 are the office bears of a-8, Visakhapatnam District Cooperative Central Bank, Visakhapatnam, represented by A-1. The bank Management prepared a seniority list from 1973 onwards from dccb Division and PADB Division commencing from 01-04-1987 to 31-10-1991 for filling up the vacancies in those divisions. The management called for objections from all the persons who are likely to be affected and considered the objections and thereafter effected the promotions for the posts arising from 01-11-1991 on common seniority list and wage priority was extended by paying dues to the employees on 03-10-1994. Similarly promotions were also effected on 05-09-1994 and 16-09-1994 by following the guidelines. While so, the accused have developed ill-feelings towards the complainant and resorted to vilification which was totally unwarranted and the complainant was made a target. In the said process, the accused circulated pamphlets on 13-10-1994 making certain allegations against the complainant and similar pamphlet was also issued on 18-10-1994. Later, the accused affixed wall posters at all vintage positions at the head office of the bank at Visakhapatnam and branches all over the city with false allegations affecting his reputation and integrity attributing corrupt practices to him. It was a calculated attack on the complainant to defame him. The accused also released other pamphlets on 02-11-1994 and 07-11-1994 with more allegations, which were unfounded to humiliate and defame the complainant, therefore, the complainant got issued a telegram to the accused through his Advocate and they gave an incongruous reply through their Advocate. The complainant again got issued a lawyers notice on 10-11-1994 and the accused also gave a reply through their counsel. The complainant again got issued a lawyers notice on 10-11-1994 and the accused also gave a reply through their counsel. The accused did not remove the wall posters and pamphlets affixed at various places resulting in continuous mischief against him by issuing pamphlets offending his integrity and to defame him, therefore, the complainant approached the Court and filed the complaint against the accused for the offence under Section 500 of IPC. ( 5 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty when they were examined under Section 257 of Cr. P. C. and A-5 was acquitted under Section 257 of Cr. P. C. and during the trial, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. P-1 to P-24 and M. Os. 1 and 2 were marked. No defence witnesses were examined by the accused. But they marked exs. D-1 to D-17. The learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence, found the accused guilty and accordingly, convicted and sentenced A-1 to A-4, A-6 and a-7 as referred above. ( 6 ) THE complainant as PW-1 stated that when he took steps for fixing the seniority and promoting the persons in the vacancies, A-1 on behalf of A-8 association represented that some injustice was done to them. On 15-10-1994, A-8 union brought Ex. A-3 pamphlet against him. Immediately, he discussed with the president of the bank and the contacted the Manager to depute a Senior Officer of Cooperative Bank to look into the grievance. He also wrote Ex. P-4 letter to a-1 advising him to place his grievances, if any, regarding the fixation of seniority to the General Manger of APCCS. Ex. P-5, pamphlet, was distributed by a-8 Association alleging that the complainant was misleading the President to the bank and the accused did not prefer to the General Manager. Ex. P-5 is the pamphlet, dated 18-10-1994 and on 02-11-1994, A-8 Association brought out Ex. P-6 pamphlet and they also distributed Ex. P-7 pamphlet on 08-11-2004, wherein the complainant was also defamed stating that he had shown partiality in sanctioning of loans and interest was not collected properly. He further deposed that in ex. P-6 pamphlet, the accused alleged that he kept one Attender at his residence and lockers from the company other than Godrej Company, Stationery etc. was purchased from Government organizations and that the complainant travelled in flights. He also marked Exs. He further deposed that in ex. P-6 pamphlet, the accused alleged that he kept one Attender at his residence and lockers from the company other than Godrej Company, Stationery etc. was purchased from Government organizations and that the complainant travelled in flights. He also marked Exs. P-8 to P-11 photographs of the wall posters affixed at various places of the office. He further stated that Exs. P-3 and P-5 to P-7 pamphlets were distributed at the Branch Office, Head Office, APCOB, District cooperative Officer, Project Director, Overseas Development Authority and also to different bank customers. When he issued the original of Ex. P-12 notice, the accused gave Ex. P-13 reply owning the responsibility of publication and distribution of pamphlets by asserting the truth. He also got marked Ex. P-15, permission letter to purchase a plot from VUDA, Visakhapatnam and Ex. P-16, provident Fund Loan Sanction letter and Ex. P-17, letter of appreciation. He also marked M. O. 2 videocassette relating to the felicitations done to him when he was transferred to Visakhapatnam. On account of the release of the pamphlets by the accused, he has undergone mental agony. An enquiry was ordered and in the enquiry, the allegations were found baseless and mala fide. Another enquiry regarding the allegations of another petition was also found baseless. ( 7 ) PW-2, a customer of the bank, deposed that he has gone through the wall posters and pamphlets and went to PW-1 and asked the truthfulness regarding the allegations made in the wall posters and pamphlets as some suspicion was created in his mind also. ( 8 ) PW-3, the then District Co-operative Officer, spoke about the distribution of pamphlets by the accused, which he identified during the course of evidence and on enquiry, PW-1 denied the allegations levelled against him. He further stated that PW-1 worked under his control and he has not come across any kind of irregularities during the tenure of PW-1. ( 9 ) THE trial Court, after perusing the pamphlets, wall posters and the photos filed by the complainant and Ex. P-13 reply given by A-1 to A-4, A-6 and A-7 admitting the responsibility of the publication and distribution of pamphlets and the reports of the enquiries etc. , observed that the ingredients of Section 499 of IPC are satisfied. The prosecution placed sufficient documents in proof of the allegations. P-13 reply given by A-1 to A-4, A-6 and A-7 admitting the responsibility of the publication and distribution of pamphlets and the reports of the enquiries etc. , observed that the ingredients of Section 499 of IPC are satisfied. The prosecution placed sufficient documents in proof of the allegations. The accused admitted the offence at the time of 313 of cr. P. C. examination and contended that it comes under exception No. 1 of Section 499 of IPC. The trial Court further observed that the pamphlets marked by PW-1 conclusively established that there are number of personal allegations of misconduct, corruption, nepotism etc. against him. Ex. P-6 pamphlet attributed corruption, nepotism and misconduct. It is further observed that the accused also took the responsibility of the allegations through reply notice and the allegations are not substantiated and not based on the facts. Section 17 of the trade Union Act gives right of criminal conspiracy in trade disputes and Section 180 of the said Act provides immunity and civil suit in certain cases, therefore, the accused cannot take the shelter under the Trade union Act. ( 10 ) THE trial Court, after elaborate discussion, observed that the prosecution proved the ingredients of Section 499 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The accused failed to substantiate the allegations by placing any kind of material regarding the allegations made against the complainant, therefore, the offence under Section 500 of IPC is proved. The Appellate Court also, after going through the entire material, concurred with the view expressed by the trial court and found them guilty for the offence under section 500 of IPC. However, the Appellate court took a lenient view by setting aside the imprisonment and increasing the fine amount to Rs. 5,000/ -. ( 11 ) SECTION 499 of IPC reads as follows: "499. Defamation. Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. Defamation. Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. Explanation 1.-It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Explanation 2.-It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Explanation 3.-An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4.-No imputation is said to harm a person's reputations, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. First Exception.-Imputation of truth public which good requires to be made or published.-It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact. Second Exception.-Public conduct of public servants.-It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Third Exception.-Conduct of any person touching any public question.-It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. " ( 12 ) THERE is concurrent finding of fact by the Courts below. Third Exception.-Conduct of any person touching any public question.-It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. " ( 12 ) THERE is concurrent finding of fact by the Courts below. The acts attributed to the accused do not come within the purview of explanation, which was given by way of exceptions to Section 499 of IPC. Though the accused tried to project that the complainant made excess telephone calls by placing some material, that itself is not sufficient to substantiate the allegations made in the pamphlet and wall posters. By taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, the Appellate Court has already taken a lenient view in the matter. The accused, being the members of the employees Union, are not supposed to make irresponsible allegations against the concerned authorities without any basis and they cannot plead that as an Association they have a right to make allegations though there is no supporting material to substantiate such allegations. When the complainant's track record indicates that he is one of the good officers of the organization, the accused should have been more careful in attributing aspersions against him and on account of false allegations, unmindful of the reaction of the public and the mental agony of the complainant made against him. ( 13 ) AFTER going through the entire material, I do not think that the accused deservers any further leniency in the matter and I am not inclined to order further modification of the sentence imposed by the Appellate court. ( 14 ) IN the result, Crl. R. C. No. 1196 of 2000 is dismissed by confirming the conviction given by the Courts below and the sentence of fine imposed by the appellate Court. ( 15 ) CRL. R. C. NO. 247 of 2001 is also dismissed, as I did not find any merits in the light of the order in Cr. R. C. No. 1196 of 2000. .