PARAS DASS Vs. PARAS DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this criminal revision, the accused Shri Paras Dass son of Shri Baij Nath challenges the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 30th November, 1965 affirming on appeal the order of his conviction made by Shri B. K. Malhotra, Magistrate 1st Class, Delhi, dated 18th August, 1965 convic- ting him of an offence under section 500, I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo four months' simple imprisonment to two counts, the senten- ces to run concurrently. The complainant, it may be pointed out, is also a man of the same name, Shri Paras Dass, though his' fathers' name is Shri Jugal Kishore. The complaint was instituted on 21st March, 1963 (more than five years ago) and after an enquiry under sec- tion 202, Cr. P. C., the accused was summoned under section 500, I P.C. According to the complaint, the accused was in the service of the comp- lanant as a Munim for about three or four months, a short time prior to the institution of the complaint. He was dismissed from service by the complanant because he was found incompetent and dishonest. After his"dismissal, the accused started making false complaints against the complainant to the Income-tax Department, as a result of which a raid was organised by the said department, but nothing incriminating was found on such search. The accused is also alleged to have distributed on 19th March, 1963 pamphlets marked Exhibits P. 2 and P. 3 in Parade ground, Delhi on the occasion of Rishab Jayanti Mela and also at the red temple at Delhi. On 20th March, 1963, the accused is again alleged to have distributed pamphlets of the same kind in the Income-tax Depa- rtment, when he was caught by Shri N. H. Naqvi, Director of Inspection (Investigation). The contents of the pamphlets are stated to be highly defamatory and to have brought the complainant into hatred and to have lowered his prestige.

(2.) The accused who denied the charge, was tried in accordance with law and after going through the entire evidence, the learned Magis- trate trying the accused came to the conclusion that the accused had distribued the pamphlets in question. He also came to the conclusion that the pamphlets were defamatory per se. The witnesses for the com- plainant, as is clear from the order of the trial Court, had also advised the accused not to distribute the pamphlets, but the accused replied that he wanted to extract money out of the complainant. As a matter of fact; according to the trial Court, even a defence witness (D. W. 1) exa- mined by the accused supported the contention of the prosecution wit- nesses on this point. Holding the accused guilty for distributing the pamphlets on 19th March, 1963 in the public meeting and also on 20th March, 1963 in the Income-tax Department, the learned Magistrate con- victed him as mentioned earlier.

(3.) On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge in a fairly detailed and well-reasoned order upheld the conviction, but inlieu of imprisonment, he awarded to the accused the sentence of fine to the extent of Rs. 500.00. The revision petition filed by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence was, however, dismissed.