JUDGMENT : 1. These three cases are interlinked and are, therefore, being disposed of by a common order. 2. The revisions, registered as Cri. Revision Nos. 858/08 and 1450/08, are counter revisions preferred respectively by the accused namely Babu Khan (for short 'Babu') and complainant Abdul Latif Khan (for brevity 'Latif') against appellate judgment passed on 24-4-2008 by Shri Deepak Kumar Agrawal, Third Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Cri. Appeal No. 130/07, whereby Babu's conviction, under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, as recorded by Shri Vivek Sharma, JMFC, Hoshangabad vide judgment dated 6-7-2007 in Cri. Case No. 283/07 and consequent sentence of fine, were affirmed but the period of custodial sentence was reduced from 1 year to 6 months. 3. The MCrC, filed by Babu and numbered as MCrC No. 11566/08, is a petition, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), for issuance of direction to the trial Court to lodge a complaint against Latif (examined as PW1) and one Shazad Ali (PW2) in respect of the offences punishable under sections 193, 211 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 4. At the relevant point of time, Babu and Latif were residing in the same vicinity at Seoni-Malwa. The complaint of defamation was made by Latif on 12-11-1999. According to him, Babu had defamed him by distributing amongst the inhabitants of the locality including Yakub, Shahjad and Anwar and residents of the town comprising Nawab Khan, Jameel Khan and Ayub Ali, copies of the application addressed to the SHO of Police Station Seoni-Malwa and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and containing false imputations to the effect that - (i) He in association with a person, Sindhi by caste, was involved in identifying the lands left by the persons migrated to Pakistan as well as in handing over possession thereof to his associate and in the process, had earned considerable amount by way of commission. (ii) After disassociating himself from the joint venture, he started getting forest timber stolen and trees of Mango, Neem, Peepal etc. standing in the agricultural fields belonging to various persons, cut for the purpose of sale. (iii) He opened a timber mart on a land in dispute with a Mosque. (iv) While constructing house, he encroached upon a piece of land belonging to Babu's wife. standing in the agricultural fields belonging to various persons, cut for the purpose of sale. (iii) He opened a timber mart on a land in dispute with a Mosque. (iv) While constructing house, he encroached upon a piece of land belonging to Babu's wife. (v) There were reports as to his indulgence in the communal riots that occurred in Ahmedabad in the year 1992 and during that period, had also taken precautions to conceal his presence for a long time at Seoni-Malwa. (vii) His activities gave raise to suspicion that he was involved in unlawful activities and was a member of some banned organisation. 5. Latif (PW1) reiterated the averments made in the complaint and also tendered in evidence - copies of the application containing defamatory allegations, complaint made to the SHO, notice sent to Babu and corresponding postal receipts (Ex.P/1 to P/4 respectively). His evidence drew ample support from the statement of Shazad Ali (PW2). In spite of grant of sufficient opportunities, Babu did not prefer to get them cross examined. In defence, he examined Nawab Khan (DW1) and Jameel Khan (DW3), who were cited as witnesses in the complaint, to disprove the allegations regarding distribution of copies of the application containing offending material, and Sheikh Nasir @ Chhuttu Bhaiya (DW2) to substantiate the allegation No. (i) (above). However, none of them specifically denied the factum of circulation of copies of the application containing abovementioned imputations and only pleaded ignorance. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Babu still submitted that the evidence of Latif and Shahzad was not worthy of credence as it suffered from material inconsistencies with reference to contents of their respective statements recorded under sections 200 and 202 of the Code respectively. Attention has also been invited to the following facts - (a) He had filed an application, under section 340 read with section 195 of the Code, requesting the trial Magistrate to initiate action against both Latif and Shahzad for the offences punishable under sections 193, 211 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code in the light of averments made therein. (b) The order dated 2-3-2007 rejecting the application as premature was set aside by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad on 14-5-2007 and the trial Magistrate was directed to consider the application at the time of Judgment. (b) The order dated 2-3-2007 rejecting the application as premature was set aside by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad on 14-5-2007 and the trial Magistrate was directed to consider the application at the time of Judgment. (c) Learned Magistrate, while appreciating the evidence on record, failed to consider and decide the application and learned Additional Sessions Judge completely overlooked the non-compliance of the-direction contained in his own order-dated 14-5-2007 (supra). 7. However, fact of the matter is that in Paragraph 15 of the judgment, learned Magistrate, while clearly opining that the offence of giving false evidence was not made out against Latif or Shahzad, had proceeded to reject Babu's complaint, though no formal order appears to have been passed on his application. Such a refusal was apparently appealable under sub-section (1) of section 341 of the Code. Since Babu could have availed of an alternative and efficacious remedy under one of the specific provisions of the Code, the MCrC, seeking interference under the inherent powers, deserves to be rejected as not maintainable. 8. As indicated already, Babu, the accused, had failed to avail the opportunity to cross-examine Latif or Shahzad and thereby bring out contradictions with reference to their earlier statements. He could not, therefore, argue that their evidence suffered from infirmities. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, while deciding the appeal, has considered all the material aspects, whether factual or legal, in a right perspective. It is trite that the revisional jurisdiction can not embark upon re-appreciation of evidence unless the finding of fact is, on the face of it, illegal or perverse. However, the concurrent factual finding that Babu had made defamatory allegations against Latif without the least justification cannot be said to be, in any way, uncalled for or not based on relevant evidence. 9. Further, the contention that Babu was entitled to protection under exception 8 to section 499 of the Indian Penal Code in view of non-initiation of action against him by the SHO or the SDM for the offences under sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code is also apparently misconceived. 9. Further, the contention that Babu was entitled to protection under exception 8 to section 499 of the Indian Penal Code in view of non-initiation of action against him by the SHO or the SDM for the offences under sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code is also apparently misconceived. For this, reference may be made to the following observations made by Mehr Chand Mahajan J., speaking for a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Basir-ul-Huq vs. State of W. B., AIR 1953 SC 293 - "As regards the charge under section 500, Penal Code, it seems fairly clear both on principle and authority that where the allegations made in a false report disclose two distinct offences, one against the public servant and the other against a private individual, that other is not debarred by the provisions of section 195 from seeking redress for the offence committed against him. Section 499, Penal Code, which mentions the ingredients of the offence of defamation gives within defined limits immunity to persons making depositions in Court, but it is now well settled that that immunity is a qualified one and is not absolute as it is in English law. Under section 198, Criminal Procedure Code, a complaint in respect of an offence under section 499, Penal Code, can only be initiated at the instance of the person defamed. In like manner as cognizance for an offence under section 182 cannot be taken except at the complaint of the public servant concerned. In view of these provisions, there does not seem in principle any warrant for the proposition that a complaint under section 499 in such a situation cannot be taken cognizance of unless two persons join in making it, i.e. it can only be considered if both the public servant and the person defamed join in making it, otherwise the person defamed is without any redress. The statute has prescribed distinct procedure for the making of the complaints under these two provisions of the Indian Penal Code and when the prescribed procedure has been followed, the Court is bound to take cognizance of the offence complained of." 10. For these reasons, none of the contentions raised against legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned conviction is acceptable. 11. This brings me to the question of sentence. For these reasons, none of the contentions raised against legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned conviction is acceptable. 11. This brings me to the question of sentence. Learned counsel for Latif has submitted that reduction of the term of custodial sentence, by a practically unreasoned order, was not at all justified as one of the imputations made by Babu, an Ex-policeman, that he was a member of the organization involved in disturbing communal harmony in the Country, had caused an incalculable harm to his reputation. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Chaman Lal vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1970 SC 1372 , he has urged for restoration of the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. 12. In Chaman Lal's case (ibid), reduction of simple imprisonment from 3 months to 2 months in order to save the accused from disqualification for continuing as the President of the Municipality was held to be not warranted. However, taking into consideration the social impact of the crime and other relevant circumstances of the instant case including that the offence of defamation, which is punishable with simple imprisonment for a term extending to 2 years, was committed in the year 1999, no interference with the appellate order of sentence is called for. 13. In the result, - (i) Both the revisions are hereby dismissed. (ii) The petition, under section 482 of the Code, also stands dismissed with liberty to file an appeal, under section 341 of the Code, along with an appropriate application for condonation of delay. Copy of this order be retained in each one of the connected petitions.