CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') herein has filed a complaint against three persons accusing them of committing offences under Sections 499/500/501/ 182/211 read with Section 34/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'). As is clear from the aforesaid provisions, the complaint is founded on the plea that the accused persons have defamed the complainant. The accusation is that the accused No.1 Mr.Vishwanath A. Pai Panandiker in concert and connivance with accused No.2 Mr.P.S. Dhotrekar has deliberately, maliciously and willfully published false and defamatory statements to harm the complainant's reputation and criminally subject him to harassment. The impugned publication is contained in two letters, both dated 30.12.2000 and addressed by the accused No.1 to the Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi as well as the Income-Tax Department.

(2.) At the relevant time, the complainant as well as both the accused persons were working with the accused No.3, namely, Centre for Policy Research (hereinafter referred to as 'CPR'). The accused No.1 was the Director of CPR, whereas the complainant was working as Research Supervisor in a grade which corresponds to Grade-H established by the University Grants Commission (UGC). The accused No.1, however, terminated the services of the complainant vide letter dated 16.8.2000. The complainant challenged this termination by filing Civil Writ No. 5928/2000 dated 27.9.2000 (this writ petition was allowed and termination order set aside). During the pendency of this petition, the aforesaid two letters dated 30.12.2000 were written by the accused No.1 to Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi and the Income-Tax Department respectively. That was the last working day for the accused No.1 as the Director with the CPR as his employment ended on that date. According to the complainant, the letters were received by the Enforcement Directorate as well as the Income-Tax Department in the middle of January 2001, which would demonstrate that the accused No.1 backdated these letters written on the official letterhead of the CPR after he ceased to be with the said Centre. In these two letters, false and malicious allegations were made and published which, according to the complainant, are defamatory in nature.

(3.) In the letter addressed to the Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi, the accused No.1 stated that he had recently received information from the Australian National University that the complainant earned $ 50,000 p.a. during the Research Fellowship in the said university in mid 1990s, which was in "gross violation of our rules as well as FERA which prevailed then". The accused No.1, therefore, urged that the "matter be investigated for appropriate action under the then prevailing FERA regulations". He also stated that the Enforcement Directorate could get further details from the accused No.2, who was working as Chief, Administrative Services with the CPR.