JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.-The complainant has come in appeal against the judgment dated 11.6.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi in Complaint No. 267-1/ of 1999 and 1631 of 1999 acquitting the respondents under Sections 500, 120-B IPC. 2. The facts in brief are that appellant on 23.4.1999 had filed a complaint that respondents in order to grab Jagan Nath Temple premises, to oust the Pujaris and to harm and defame them, have published a poster Ex.CW-1/A. The poster was published and posted in Mandi town in the third week of March, 1999 containing imputations and false allegations of theft, attempt to murder and other crimes against the complainant. The respondents have thus defamed the complainant and harmed his reputation in the society. The respondents have thus committed an offence punishable under law. 3. The preliminary evidence was recorded on 10.5.1999. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate summoned the respondents under Sections 500 and 120-B IPC. The summoning order was challenged in revision by the respondents which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi on 25.10.2000. The notice of accusation was put to the respondents under Sections 500 and 120-B IPC on 22.2.2002. The respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The complainant had examined 5 witnesses. The statements of respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the case of the complainant but led no evidence in defence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondents as noticed above and, therefore, the complainant has come in the appeal. 4. I have heard Mr. Harish Behal, Advocate, learned counsel for appellant as well as Mr. Arun Sehgal, Advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, Advocate, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 5 and I have also gone through the record. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has erred in acquitting the respondents, the appellant has proved the case against the respondents under Sections 500 and 120-B IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The respondents in criminal conspiracy with each other have defamed the appellant. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for setting-aside the impugned judgment and conviction of respondents in accordance with law. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have supported the impugned judgment. 5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for setting-aside the impugned judgment and conviction of respondents in accordance with law. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have supported the impugned judgment. 5. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, the evidence which has come on record needs to be looked into. The complainant has appeared as CW-1 and has stated that he is Pujari of Jagan Nath Temple. Kewal Ram Sharma, Kameshwar, Shesh Ram and Puran Singh had a conspiracy to remove him from the temple in March, 1999. He and his brother Ved Pal had gone to open the temple, they found one envelope there which was sent to Kulwant Kaur. The address of the addressee was incomplete and, therefore, with this endorsement, it was lying at the door of the temple. He opened the envelope Ex.CW-1/B and poster Ex.CW-1/A was found therein. He had gone through the poster. There were false allegations in the poster which were levelled in conspiracy with Gaurishwara Nand. He identified the signatures of four persons. Thereafter, he contacted the press. Several persons such as Tek Singh, Sanjay, Narain, Bansal, Het Ram etc. told him that he had been defamed in the town as Pujari. They told that the said poster had been given to them by Gaurishwara Nand. On inquiry, it was found that poster was got published from M/s Printer on 16.3.1999. The poster has defamed him in the city and he has been lowered down in the estimation of ordinary person. In cross-examination, he has denied that poster was not got published by the respondents. He has also stated that his reputation was lowered even prior to the case. 6. CW-2 Ved Pal has stated that they are Pujaris of Jagan Nath Temple since the time of their ancestors. Kewal Ram Sharma, Shesh Ram, Kameshwar Sharma and Puran Singh Sen intend to oust them on one pretext or the other. In March 1999 when he and his brother went to open the temple, they found one registered envelope addressed to Kulwant Kaur. On opening the envelope Ex.CW-1/B, poster Ex.CW-1/A was found from the envelope. On reading the poster, it was found that a conspiracy was hatched against the witness and his brother. In March 1999 when he and his brother went to open the temple, they found one registered envelope addressed to Kulwant Kaur. On opening the envelope Ex.CW-1/B, poster Ex.CW-1/A was found from the envelope. On reading the poster, it was found that a conspiracy was hatched against the witness and his brother. The poster was sent by all the aforesaid four persons. He identifies the signatures of aforesaid persons being the ex-member of Gita Bhawan. They asked the press people, several persons asked them what they have done. Such persons are Tek Chand, Sanjay etc. This has caused their defamation in the city. The press people and other persons told that posters were given by Baba Gaurishwara Nand which were published on 16.3.1999. The allegations are wrong. In cross-examination, he has stated that since signatures are of respondents on the posters, therefore, the posters were published by them. The persons who enquired from them are Tek Chand, Het Ram and Sushil etc. 7. CW-3, Ashok Vaidya has stated that he knew Prabhu Dass, who is a respectable man. He owns a printing press. The poster Ex.CW-3/A was given by Baba Gaurishwara Nand for printing. On the asking of Prabhu Dass, he told him orally as well as in writing that the posters were given by Gaurishwara Nand. About 1000 copies were printed. The original copy Ex.CW-3/A is signed by Kewal Ram, Kameshwar, Shesh Ram and Puran Singh Sen. The matter for publication was given by Baba. In cross-examination he has stated that except Gaurishwara Nand, no other person came to him. 8. CW-4 Tek Chand has stated that he knew Prabhu Dass. The envelope Ex.CW-1/C was delivered to him containing poster Ex.CW-4/A. He read the posters and felt very bad. There were allegations of theft against Prabhu Dass alongwith the allegation that Prabhu Dass intends to kill Baba ji. He enquired from Prabhu Dass, who told that the allegations are false. Prabhu Dass was defamed by this and he was lowered down in his and in the estimation of others. In the cross-examination, he has said that the envelope which was sent to him the name of sender was Gaurishwara Nand. There were no signatures of Baba ji on the poster. However, the signatures of Kameshwar and others were there on the poster. 9. In the cross-examination, he has said that the envelope which was sent to him the name of sender was Gaurishwara Nand. There were no signatures of Baba ji on the poster. However, the signatures of Kameshwar and others were there on the poster. 9. CW-5 Chet Ram has stated that on 18.3.1999 envelope Ex.CW-5/A was given to him by children, he opened the envelope and found poster Ex.CW-5/B. He read the matter in which allegations were against Prabhu Dass and Ved Ram, which were about theft and also to kill Baba. He asked Prabhu Dass, who told that the allegations are false. In this way, Prabhu Dass was defamed and his reputation was lowered down in the society. 10. The respondents in their statements have denied the case of the complainant. It is to be seen whether poster Ex.CW-1/A was published by the respondents and the appellant has been lowered down in the estimation of others and he has been defamed. In fact, posters Ex.CW-1/A, Ex.CW-4/A and CW-5/B have come on record which are identical. The poster Ex.CW-3/A allegedly bears the original signatures of respondents No. 2 to 5. The poster Ex.CW-1/A has come on record in the statement of complainant as well as CW-2 Ved Pal. The poster Ex.CW-3/A has come on record in the statement of CW-3 Ashok Vaidya. The poster Ex.CW-4/A has come in the statement of CW-4 Tek Chand whereas poster Ex.CW-5/B has come in the statement of CW-5 Chet Ram. CW-3 Ashok Vaidya owner of the printing press has stated that poster Ex.CW-3/A was given to him by the respondent No.1 for printing. He has nowhere stated that poster Ex.CW-3/A is signed by respondent No.1. CW-3 has stated that Ex.CW-3/A is signed by Kewal Ram Sharma, Kameshwar, Shesh Ram and Puran Singh Sen but the signatures of Kewal Ram, Kameshwar and Shesh Ram on poster Ex.CW-3/A have not been proved by CW-3. He has not stated that Ex.CW-3/A was signed by Kewal Ram, Kameshwar, Shesh Ram and Puran Singh Sen in his presence nor he has stated how he identifies the signatures of Kewal Ram, Kameshwar, Shesh Ram and Puran Singh Sen on poster Ex.CW-3/A. According to CW-3 Ashok Vaidya Ex.CW-3/A is the original poster. He has not stated that Ex.CW-3/A was signed by Kewal Ram, Kameshwar, Shesh Ram and Puran Singh Sen in his presence nor he has stated how he identifies the signatures of Kewal Ram, Kameshwar, Shesh Ram and Puran Singh Sen on poster Ex.CW-3/A. According to CW-3 Ashok Vaidya Ex.CW-3/A is the original poster. CW-3 has not explained how he allegedly accepted the order for publishing the poster in question on the asking of respondent No.1 when admittedly the poster in question is not signed by respondent No.1. CW-3 has not stated that respondent No.1 gave the order for printing posters on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 5. Thus, printing and publication of posters in question by CW-3 on the asking of respondents has not been established. 11. The complainant has placed on record envelope Ex.CW1/B addressed to Tek Chand Kaushik. On envelopes Ex.CW-1/B, Ex.CW-1/C and Ex.CW-5/A, the names and addresses of the senders have not been shown. However, on envelope Ex.CW-1/B there is a pasted slip in the name of Jagan Nath Temple Mandi, Gita Bhawan, Parishad Parbandh Samiti, Mandi but even this slip has not been connected with respondents. Thus, there is no material on record that the posters were sent to various persons in envelope Ex.CW-1/B, Ex.CW-1/C and Ex.CW-5/A by the respondents. 12. The complainant in his own statement has stated that the poster Ex.CW-1/A is signed by Kewal Ram Sharma, Kameshwar, Shesh Ram and Puran Singh Sen. The complainant has not stated that the original of poster Ex.CW-1/A was signed by the aforesaid four persons in his presence nor he has tated how he identifies the signatures of aforesaid four persons on the poster Ex.CW-1/A. Thus, the complainant has not connected poster Ex.CW-1/A with the original poster Ex.CW-3/A. The alleged conspiracy of Kewal Ram, Kameshwar, Shesh Ram and Puran Singh Sen in publication of the posters has also not been prove. There is nothing on record how the respondents conspired together for printing and publishing the posters in question. The complainant has not stated in whose estimation he has been lowered down and defamed. He has referred to Tek Singh, Narain, Bansal, Het Ram who allegedly told the complainant that he had been defamed in the town as Pujari , but in whose estimation he has been defamed and lowered down, the complainant has not stated. 13. The complainant has not stated in whose estimation he has been lowered down and defamed. He has referred to Tek Singh, Narain, Bansal, Het Ram who allegedly told the complainant that he had been defamed in the town as Pujari , but in whose estimation he has been defamed and lowered down, the complainant has not stated. 13. CW-2 Ved Pal while referring poster Ex.CW-1/A has stated that Kewal Ram Sharma, Shesh Ram, Kameshwar Sharma and Puran Singh Sen have signed the poster and he identifies their signatures as ex-members of the Gita Bhawan as noticed above. Ex.CW-1/A is not original poster, it is a photocopy. CW-2 has not stated that the original of Ex.CW-1/A was signed by the aforesaid persons in his presence nor he has stated how he identifies the signatures of aforesaid four persons of Ex.CW-1/A. The statement of CW-2 that he identifies the signatures of aforesaid four persons being ex-member of the Gita Bhawan is short of legal proof of poster Ex.CW-1/A. CW-2 is the brother of the complainant and he has stated that poster has caused their defamation in the city but he has not stated that in whose estimation the complainant has been defamed. He has stated that since the signatures of respondents are on the posters, therefore, they have published them. 14. CW-4 Tek Chand has said that he felt very bad after reading the poster Ex.CW-4/A. He enquired from Prabhu Dass who told that the allegations are false. Prabhu Dass was defamed and lowered down in his and in the estimation of others. CW-4 has nowhere stated that allegations in the poster were false and, therefore, Prabhu Dass has been lowered down in his estimation. CW-4 has stated that since Prabhu Dass has said that allegations are false, therefore, he has been lowered down in his estimation but without saying that according to CW-4 the allegations were false. CW-4 has not stated that in fact to his knowledge, the allegations in poster Ex.CW-4/A were false. 15. CW-5 Chet Ram has given statement that Prabhu Dass has been lowered down in the society. This is general statement. CW-5 has nowhere stated that Prabhu Dass was lowered down in the estimation of the witness. 16. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly appreciated the material on record in returning the finding while acquitting the respondents and dismissing the complaint. This is general statement. CW-5 has nowhere stated that Prabhu Dass was lowered down in the estimation of the witness. 16. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly appreciated the material on record in returning the finding while acquitting the respondents and dismissing the complaint. The view taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is possible from the evidence on record. It is settled proposition that in appeal the appellate Court will not convert the acquittal into conviction simply on the ground that other view is also possible. 17. As a result of the above discussion the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds of the respondents are discharged.