JUDGMENT ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. 1. The petitioner is the original complainant. He had filed a complaint alleging commission of offences punishable under section 500 of the IPC and 501 of the IPC read with section 34 of the IPC against the respondent nos. 1 to 12 herein. The learned Magistrate, after examining the petitioner on oath, as contemplated under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, issued process against the respondent nos. 1 to 12, requiring them to appear and answer to the charge of an punishable under section 500 IPC and 501 IPC read with section 34 of the IPC. 2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the petitioner shall hereinafter be referred to as the complainant and respondent nos. 1 to 12 as the accused. 3. Being aggrieved by the order issuing process, the accused approached the Court of Sessions at Mumbai by filing an application for revision. The learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the Revision Application, allowed it and set aside the order passed by the Magistrate, issuing process against the accused. 4. Being aggrieved thereby, the complainant has filed the present revision application, challenging the order passed by the Court of Sessions in revision. The complainant prays that the said order be set aside. 5. I have heard Ms. Yogini Ghawade, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. N.G. Bane, learned counsel for the accused. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the Revision Application and the annexure thereto, which include the complaint, the order passed by the learned Magistrate, as also the order passed by the Court of Sessions in revision. 6. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that a clear case made out from the averments made in the complaint, for proceeding against the accused persons with respect to the accusation of the aforesaid offences. According to her, there was no case for interfering with the order passed by the learned Magistrate, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, as has been wrongly done by the Court of Sessions. 7. I have carefully gone through the complaint and the facts as revealed therefrom. It appears that there is some dispute between the complainant on one hand, and the members of the present managing committee of Vrushali Shilp Cooperative Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as the said society). 7. I have carefully gone through the complaint and the facts as revealed therefrom. It appears that there is some dispute between the complainant on one hand, and the members of the present managing committee of Vrushali Shilp Cooperative Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as the said society). It appears that the complainant was in the past, an office bearer, and a member of the managing committee of the said society. The case of the complainant is that a five pages circular, which contained defamatory matter concerning the complainant, was displayed on the notice board of 11 wings of the said society. The circular was titled as Jahir Nished, Nished Nishe (Hindi). That, this circular was signed by the accused nos. 3 to 12 and several others, and that the same had been displayed with the full consent, support and connivance of the accused nos. 1, 2 and 3, who are the members of the managing committee of the said society. It is categorically stated in the complaint that the idea behind writing and displaying the said circular was to lower the moral character of complainant in the estimation of others. 8. I have carefully gone through the circular, a copy of which is annexed to the Revision Application. Indeed, it contains imputations concerning the complainant which have the effect of lowering the moral character of complainant in the estimation of others. Among other things, it is suggested that the complainant is a liar, that he had not held the elections of the said cooperative housing society, that he had not got the accounts audited etc. It is also suggested that some amount belonging to the society, has been misappropriated (by the complainant). 9. Thus, that the circular contains defamatory matter, cannot be doubted or disputed. That, that it has been signed by the accused nos. 4 to 12 and some other persons, has also not been doubted or disputed. 10. In the complaint, there is a categorical assertion that the circular contains false and baseless allegations against the complainant, and that the same was maliciously displayed on the notice board of the society. Apart from the fact that the circular contains imputations which are defamatory, the fact that it was published by displaying on 11 notice boards on the 11 wings of the society, is also significant. Apart from the fact that the circular contains imputations which are defamatory, the fact that it was published by displaying on 11 notice boards on the 11 wings of the society, is also significant. Prima facie, an intention to lower the complainant in the estimation of others, is evident from the matter stated in the circular as well as the manner of its publication. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, quite right in issuing process against the accused persons, as done by him. 11. The order passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, allowing the Revision Application, exhibits an unawareness on the part of the learned Judge as to the essence of, or ingredients of the offence punishable under section 500 of the IPC. The learned Judge in her order has observed:- “To make out the case under section 500 of IPC, the complainant has to prove that accused made defamatory comments with an ulterior motive and without the least justification motivated by self interest.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. This is not the correct legal position, Apart from the fact that how the complainant was supposed to prove the same if the trial was not allowed to be held, is not clear, the learned Judge overlooked that she was dealing only with the question of correctness or otherwise of the order issuing process, and was not required to treat the order issuing process as an order holding the accused persons guilty of the offences in question. The learned Judge in her order also observed:- “It is not established prima-facie that it was displayed on the board with an intention to defame the complainant. If we see the notice, it seems that it is a notice given to the complainant and thereby calling upon him for misconduct.” 13. It is impossible to agree with such an observation. If the defamatory matter was written with the intention of communicating the same to the complainant, there was no necessity of displaying it on the notice board of the society. 14. The learned Judge also observed as follows:- “It is significant to note that it is nowhere mentioned in the complaint as to why the accused had an intention to use such statement alleged to be defamatory.” 15. These observations are not correct in law. The legal position with respect to the offence of defamation as understood by the learned Judge, is not correct. 16. These observations are not correct in law. The legal position with respect to the offence of defamation as understood by the learned Judge, is not correct. 16. The learned Judge totally overlooked that the manner of publication of the said circular was also significant for judging, prima facie, the intention of those responsible for the publication. 17. However, the crucial aspect of the matter was not that. The crucial aspect was that whether the order passed by the Magistrate was suffering from any patent error or illegality so as to warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction. It is well settled that revisional jurisdiction is meant to be exercised for correcting a manifest error or law, resulting in miscarriage of justice. In the case of Smt. Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivallngappa Konjalgi, AIR 1976 SC 1947 , the Supreme Court of India by way of illustration, categorized the cases where the order issuing process may be quashed. These are:- (1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused. (2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (3) Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible. (4) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like. Their Lordships further observed that the cases mentioned by them were purely illustrative, but provide sufficient guidelines to indicate contingencies in which the criminal proceedings could be quashed. It would also be appropriate to reproduce some other observations made in the same judgment which indicate that the Magistrate has a certain amount of discretion in the matter of issuance of process. It was observed thus:- “The Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to be judicially exercised by him. It would also be appropriate to reproduce some other observations made in the same judgment which indicate that the Magistrate has a certain amount of discretion in the matter of issuance of process. It was observed thus:- “The Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to be judicially exercised by him. Once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion, it is not for the high court, or even this Court, to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits, with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused.” 18. Clearly, the complaint discloses the ingredients of the alleged offences. It cannot be said that taking the averments made in the complaint at face value, no case for proceeding against the accused persons, was made out. Though the accused nos. 1, 2 and 3 have not signed the defamatory publication, these accused are the managing committee members of the said society, and the manner in which the defamatory matter was published i.e. by displaying it on the notice boards at 11 wings of the society, as also from the nature of the defamatory matter, grave and strong suspicion about their involvement in the matter, also exists. 19. There was nothing illegal or improper in the order passed by the Magistrate. Since the order passed by the Magistrate did not suffer from any illegality, error or perversity, there was hardly any scope for interfering therewith, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 20. The order passed by the Court of Sessions in revision being patently illegal and contrary to law, needs to be interfered with, in the interest of justice. 21. Revision Application is allowed. 22. The impugned order is set aside. 23. The learned Magistrate shall proceed further with the case in accordance with law. 24. Revision Application is disposed of accordingly.