Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 213 (JHR)

Mukti Prakash Panna v. State of Jharkhand

2023-02-21

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2023
JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 16.09.2005, passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner No. XI at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 2004, dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.05.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 268 of 1999, corresponding to T.R. No. 677 of 2004, whereby the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner is a forest officer, posted as Forest Range Officer, Burmu Range and at the relevant time, he, while discharging his official duty, filed a complaint case against the complainant of Complaint Case No. 268 of 1999 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi on 05.2.1999 alleging violation of the provisions constituting various offences which was subsequently sent by the learned court below to Burmu Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to register the same as First Information report and to investigate and accordingly the same was registered as Burmu P.S. Case No. 13 of 1999 against the complainant of Complaint Case No. 268 of 1999. In the said complaint lodged by the petitioner, the petitioner is said to have made a statement in Para 3 describing a lady, Late Saroja Rani as “so called wife of accused Surendra Singh Johar had claimed the land as her ancestral property” and as due to the aforesaid statement the said Surendra Singh Johar felt aggrieved, he instituted Complaint Case No. 268 of 1999 under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner alleging the said statement to be defamatory. 4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds: (a) No other witness has been examined except the complainant and his family members and friends to prove that such statement has in any way damaged the prestige in eye of public. (b) Non-production of marriage certificate and also due to non-examination of the person who is said to have given the complaint petition filed by the petitioner to the complainant when he was in jail custody. (b) Non-production of marriage certificate and also due to non-examination of the person who is said to have given the complaint petition filed by the petitioner to the complainant when he was in jail custody. (c) Admittedly the petitioner is a public servant and he filed the case against the complainant while discharging his official duty but the mandatory sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not taken to file complaint against the petitioner. (d) Both the courts below have also failed to consider that the instant complaint case was filed against the petitioner only to divert the issue from the main case since the complainant of Complaint Case No. 268 of 1999 was trying to grab the forest land and the petitioner in order to save the forest land had filed a complaint case which was subsequently registered as FIR against the said complainant. (e) Both the courts have also failed to appreciate that the main ingredient of section 500 I.P.C. is that “Imputation must have been made with an intention to harm or with knowledge or belief that it will harm the reputation of the person concerned” but in the present case the petitioner had no intention to harm the reputation of anyone rather his only intention was to save the forest land therefore the impugned orders are bad and fit to be set aside (f) The petitioner has lodged the F.I.R. as per the order of the Forest Officers, which is apparent from the letter no. 2657 dated 10.11.1998 (Annexure 1), written to the Divisional Forest Officer, Lohardaga that they have received the letter from one Smt. Pushpa Lata by which they came to know that conspiracy is going on to capture the land of the forest department. 5. Learned counsel for the State supported the judgment and submits that there is no error in the finding given by the learned Trial Court. As such, the conviction cannot be set aside, however, the sentence may be modified in lieu of fine. 6. After going through the impugned judgment including the lower court records and keeping in mind the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that neither any witness, except for the family members of the complainant, has been examined in this case nor the person who gave the information regarding such statement to the complainant when he was in jail has been examined. No mandatory sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was obtained before filing the complaint against the petitioner who is a public servant. Moreover, in the instant case the ingredients of Section 500 Cr.P.C. are missing as the petitioner did not want to harm the reputation of anybody rather he filed the case only to save the forest land that too under the direction of the senior officers of the forest department. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions and material available on record, judgment dated 16.09.2005, passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner No. XI at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 2004 and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.05.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 268 of 1999 are quashed and set aside. 8. In the result, the criminal revision is allowed. 9. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bond. 10. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below. 11. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.