JUDGMENT : PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 2. Present Criminal Revision is directed against the Judgment dated 03.01.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge III, Hazaribag in Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.09.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hazaribag in Complaint Case No. 162/99 whereby the petitioner was held guilty for the offence under Section 501 IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment of two years along with fine of Rs. 500 with default stipulation. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this Revision in a narrow compass is that complainant is an old lady and belongs to highly reputed family. Her husband was employee in DVC and posted at Chandrapura, Bokaro. It is alleged that she has constructed a house in Subhash Nagar and living there alongwith family members since 1997. During the construction of the said house few local persons tried to disturb and wanted rangdari tax in the name of road and electricity. It is further alleged that on one fine morning the complainant was going through the “Hazaribag Times” dated 24-30th January, 1999 and came to know that in the last page of the paper news column containing her name with an allegation as follows:- ,d fo/kok efgyk yfyrk nsoh us iqjs eksgYys ij mldks ijs'kku djus dk vkjksi yxkrs gq, iqfyl ç'kklu ls enn dh xqgkj yxkà lkFk gh mlus iqfyl inkf/kdkjh ij i{kikr dk vkjksi yxk;kA Further, after some lines, it was mentioned: ^^bl ckcr gt+kjhckx Vkmu dh Vhe us ml eksgYys dk losZ{k.k fd;kA ml efgyk ij nks"kkjksi.k djrs gq, mldh gjdrksa dks lafnX/k crk;k lkFk gh mlds vkpj.k ij Hkh NhaVkd'kh dhA tgk¡ jkr ढys dà yksxksa dk vkuk tkuk yxk jgrk gSA** 4. Complainant has raised serious objection against above portion of the news item which lower down the prestige of a highly reputed women in the eyes of the people of the locality as well as general persons and the relatives of the complainant. Complainant has raised serious objection against above portion of the news item which lower down the prestige of a highly reputed women in the eyes of the people of the locality as well as general persons and the relatives of the complainant. This news published in "Hazaribagh Times" was intended to insult her publicity by using and printing the words like “ mlds vkpj.k ij Hkh NhaVkd'kh dh tgk¡ jkr ढys yksxksa dk vkuk tkuk yxk jgrk gSA ” 5. Above words also reflect imputation against the chastity of the complainant. The above news item was read by several persons including the family members of the complainant and entire family felt ashamed. Complainant was compelled to remain in seclusion in her house due to fear of society as a consequence of aforesaid defamatory words. 6. After conducting enquiry the learned trial court found sufficient materials prima-facie constituting offence under Section 501 IPC and summoned the accused petitioner, who happens to be the Editor of “Hazaribag Times”, who appeared and claimed to be tried. 7. At the trial, in order to substantiate the charge leveled against the accused, altogether three witnesses were examined by the complainant including herself and documentary evidences were also filed including the “Hazaribag Times” paper 26-28th December, 1998 and 24-30th January 1999 (Exhibit 2 & 2/I). 8. On the other hand no oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the defence nor any specific plea, except being innocent and the news materials were nor printed with intention to defame the complainant, has been taken in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by the defence. 9. The learned trial court after evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and particularly the contents of newspaper item containing imputation against the character and chastity of the complainant, who is a reputed lady of the locality and there was no reasonable excuse to the accused for publishing such defamatory news item, arrived at conclusion that petitioner is guilty for the offence under Section 501 IPC and sentenced him as stated above. 10. Assailing the Judgment and order of learned trial court, the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal no. 156 of 2009 which was heard and decided by Additional Sessions Judge III, Hazaribag and vide Judgment dated 3rd January, 2015 the appeal was dismissed which has been assailed in this Revision. 11. 10. Assailing the Judgment and order of learned trial court, the petitioner preferred a criminal appeal no. 156 of 2009 which was heard and decided by Additional Sessions Judge III, Hazaribag and vide Judgment dated 3rd January, 2015 the appeal was dismissed which has been assailed in this Revision. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned Judgment and order mainly on following grounds:- (i) Both the learned court below have miserably failed to appreciate that the complainant “C.W. 1” has not asserted the contents of the complaint petition and averments about any defamatory words printed/published by the petitioner. The complaint petition itself is not a substantive piece of evidence. (ii) The petitioner and complainant were completely unknown to each other therefore the intention to defame does not and cannot arise. (iii) The newspapers in question were not proved in accordance with the principle of law of evidence as such not admissible evidence. (iv) The learned trial court failed to appreciate that during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the petitioner, the questions put forth to the petitioner were completely misconceived and absolutely foreign to the news items actually published. (v) Both the learned court below have misconstrued the meaning of the phrase “raat dhale” as “in the late night”. Whereas its correct meaning would be at the end of night or the commencement of dawn. (vi) Complainant witnesses nos. 2 & 3 are highly interested witnesses who were not named in the complaint petition as such no reliance can be placed on their testimony. C.W. 2 in his deposition has admitted that there was frequent visit of the people to the residence of opposite party no.2 because of an “Art of living” center was running at her residence. As such news item in question cannot be said to be defamatory. (vii) The news item, if any, was published only on the basis of information of the mohalla people where the complainant was residing. The petitioner has earlier published news items at the instance of complainant also. (viii) It has come on record that complainant is a habitual litigant and has lodged cases against several persons of her locality. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the petitioner is not warranted under law and suffers from illegality/perversity and fit to be set aside allowing this Revision. The petitioner has earlier published news items at the instance of complainant also. (viii) It has come on record that complainant is a habitual litigant and has lodged cases against several persons of her locality. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the petitioner is not warranted under law and suffers from illegality/perversity and fit to be set aside allowing this Revision. (ix) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon reported Judgment in the case of Nar Singh Versus State of Haryana reported in (2015) 1 SCC 496 . 12. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of petitioner and submitted that there is no legal substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of petitioner. It is proved beyond doubt that the news item published by the petitioner was defamatory to the character and reputation of the complainant. The mere plea of the defence that the same was published as disclosed by local people has no leg to stand to furnish a legal justification and as a substitute of reasonable excuse on the part of the petitioner to publish such defamatory article. It is further submitted that the interpretation of word “raat dhale” or “sham dhale” are only indicative of time of occurrence. The crux of the matter is the contents which are published are defamatory or not? The time is immaterial. In the instant case the words used against the lady-complainant belonging to a reputed family are ipso facto defamatory tending to lower down her prestige, reputation and character in the society. It is further submitted that the reported Judgment relied upon by the petitioner in Nar Singh (supra) pertains to examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The principle laid down in the aforesaid case has been followed by the learned trial court and all incriminating circumstances has been put and answered by the petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has brought no material on record either before the trial court or the Appellate Court that he was prejudiced by non putting any specific question relevant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which has occasioned failure of Justice rather he has admitted the publication of the news materials which is sufficient to constitute an offence of defamation. There is no merits in this Revision which is fit to be dismissed. 13. There is no merits in this Revision which is fit to be dismissed. 13. For better appreciation of the point of argument raised on behalf of parties, it is pertinent to extract relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code which are as under:- 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. 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 reputation, 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 lothsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. First Exception.—Imputation of truth which public 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. 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. Fourth Exception.—Publication of reports of proceedings of courts.—It is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings. Explanation.—A Justice of the Peace or other officer holding an enquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of the above section. Fifth Exception.—Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Sixth Exception.—Merits of public performance.—It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further. Explanation.—A performance may be submitted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public. Seventh Exception.—Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another.—It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates. Seventh Exception.—Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another.—It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates. Eighth Exception.—Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person.—It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation. Ninth Exception.—Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests.—It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good. Tenth Exception.—Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good.— It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good. S.501. Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory.— Whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to believe that such matter is defamatory of any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 14. I have given anxious consideration to the points of arguments raised on behalf of petitioner and perused the impugned Judgments and orders alongwith materials on record. In the instant case the allegations/imputation against the character and chastity of the complainant is well proved by the witnesses as well as the exhibited newspaper (exhibit 2/1) in original which has been admitted by the petitioner in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. There is some variation in the word, in spite of that the essence of the defamatory words are untouched. The learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis upon the words as “raat dhale” carrying its meaning as start of day or early in the morning when people assemble at the house of the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis upon the words as “raat dhale” carrying its meaning as start of day or early in the morning when people assemble at the house of the complainant. It is also brought on record that the complainant was running an institution of “Art of living” at her residence. Therefore, it is immaterial at to what time people were gathering at her house rather material aspect of the case is that the petitioner has published news item against the character and reputation of the complainant. Petitioner has failed to proof any justification/reasonable excuse for publishing such a defamatory news item against the complainant and the case does not come under any of the exceptions enumerated U/s 499 I.P.C. Therefore, I don’t find any legal substance in the points raised on behalf of the petitioner and illegality/perversity in the impugned Judgment and orders calling for any interference by way of this Revision which appears to devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. In view of above discussions and reasons present Revision is dismissed. 15. Let the copy of this order alongwith trial court record be sent back for information and needful.