JACOB ONDEN Vs. REV STANLEY PADINGADAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal by a private complainant before the Additional First Class Magistrate, Tellicherry is directed against the order acquitting the respondent accused in respect of an offence under S.500 I.P.C. The complaint was filed on 15-5-68. The complainant examined as P.W.1., Jacob Onden is a regular and active member of the Pastorate, Tellicherry which is a unit of the Church of South India Diocese of the North Kerala. He has been working as a lay preacher in the various Pastorates within the Diocese on the invitation of the Presbyter in charge in recognition of his character, ability and knowledge under the instruction of the head of the Diocese. He has also been chosen by the Education department of the Govt. of Kerala to address students of High schools and colleges on Psychophysical exercise, art of talking and other useful subjects of educative value. For a while he was also an active and Executive committee member and instructor of Sree Narayana Mission Institution, Calicut. While so, he was respected and liked by a large circle of his friends and well wishers who recognised his abilities and talents so much so they treated him with great respect and admiration.

(2.) The respondent Rev. Stanley Pandingadan was a Pastor of the Church of the South India Pastorate at Tellicherry. When he worked in that capacity there was a charge against him that he misappropriated a sum of Rs. 252.32 out of the funds of the Pastorate, but he was not prepared to settle the claim through mediation. On the other hand, he tendered his resignation which was also accepted by the Bishop. Thereafter, the respondent joined a rival group which opposed the Church of South India and made attempts to enter the churches which are directly under the church of South India and conduct services. The Christian members of the church felt aggrieved of the conduct of the respondent. However, the complainant initiated a criminal proceeding against the respondent before the Addl. First Class Magistrate, Tellicherry charging him of the defalcation of the church money. While the complaint was pending, the matter was compromised between the parties with the result the complaint was withdrawn on the respondent paying to the church the amount due to it and costs due to the complainant.

(3.) Thereafter, the respondent started accusing the complainant of various charges when he caused the publication of Ex. P1 news in the 'Manorama' daily dated 20-3-69 bringing to the notice of the public that the criminal complaint against the respondent was withdrawn on condition of the payment of money due to the church and to himself. The respondent then published Ex. P2 dated 31-3-68 in the same paper denying that the withdrawal was conditional on payment of money, but it was an unconditional withdrawal. In answer to that publication, the complainant issued a printed leaflet Ex. P3 dated 6-4-68 setting forth all the circumstances under which the case was withdrawn. Of course, the appellant complainant made certain other allegations also against the respondent. It was in answer to that printed leaflet that the disputed pamphlet in question Ex. P4 dated 27-4-68 was published by the respondent against the appellant. The relevant portion of Ex. P4 pertaining to the imputation directed against the appellant is read as follows: