BHIMANAGOUDA MALLANGOUDA Vs. MALLESHAPPA BASAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred on special leave granted under Sec. 378(4) Cr.PC., 1973, against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Bijapur, in Crl.A.No. 87 of 1977 allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (II Court), Bijapur, in C.C.No.134 of 1976 convicting the respondents for the offence punishable under Sec.500 I.P.C. and sentencing each one of them to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The appellant-complainant (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed a complaint under Sec. 200 of the Cr.P.C.against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the accused) in the court of the J.M.F.C. (II Court), Bijapur, alleging that A-l had defamed him by using the expressions to the effect that he was a rowdy type man and was an ex-convict at Ex. P. 1 (A) in Ex.P.1, which is an affidavit filed by A-1 in support of I.A.I. in O.S. No. 71 of 1975 on the file of the Civil Judge. Bijapur; that both the accused had defamed him by using the very expressions at Ex.P. 2 (A) in Ex.P. 2, the plaint in O. S. No. 71 of 1975 and lastly, that A-l had defamed him by using the expressions to the effect that he was a rowdy type of man and an ex-convict in respect of an encroachment, at Ex.P.3 (A) in Ex.P.3, an application sent by him to the Assistant Commissioner, Indi Subdivision. The accused have admitted having filed Ex.P.2. A-l has admitted that he had sworn to the affidavit Ex.P1 and sent the application Ex. P.3. They have explained that the expressions were used in good faith in their own interest and that they had mis-understood the decree for damages passed by the Munsiff, Bijapur, in O. S. No. 29 of 1970 as per Ex.D. 1, to be a conviction and therefore, had got the complainant described as an ex-convict. The Magistrate held that the ingredients of the Ninth Exception to S.499 of the I.P.C. were not established by the accused and therefore, they were guilty of the offence of defamation. The Sessions Judge held to the contrary.

(3.) We will now proceed to consider whether the expression 'rowdy type man' is per se defamation. What is commonly understood by the use of the expression rowdy type of man in the parts where the complainant and the accused are residing, is not established by adducing evidence. Therefore, we have to look into the dictionary meaning of the word 'rowdy'. The concise Oxford Dictionary gives the meaning of the word 'rowdy' as 'rough and disorderly person'. This shows that by using the word 'rowdy' the character of the complainant is not at all touched. In other words, his character is not brought down in the estimation of others. Sri Riazuddin, learned counsel for the complainant argued vehemently that even by understanding the word 'rowdy' to mean 'rough and disorderly person' and describing the complainant in such a manner, would amount to defamation, because, there is no material to show that in fact, the complainant was either rough on disorderly or both. We cannot accept this reasoning, because by saying that a person is rough and disorderly, the estimation of the person in the eyes of others cannot be said to be lowered. Coming to the expression 'ex-convict' we find that it is for the first time used in the plaint filed on 9-12-1975, and used for the second time at Ex. P. 1(A) in Ex. P. 1 filed in support of I.A.I, which in turn was filed along with the plaint on 9-12.1975 and lastly, used at Ex.P-3(A) in Ex.P. 3 on 24-12-1975. In fact a sort of explanation as to why the word 'ex-convict' is used is found at Ex. P- 3 (A), because the words used are 'ex-convict in respect of an encroachment'. Ex.D.1 is certified copy of the judgment in O.S. No.29 of 1970. A decree for damages for having caused damage to a bund belonging to the accused is seen to have been passed thereunder. Therefore, it is no wonder that the accused might have understood the decree to mean that it is in relation to an encroichment.