GOPINATHAN Vs. RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMONG these two, the former appeal is by a police officer, who was the complainant. His grievance is that after trial of the case C. C. No. 150/91, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, acquitted the accused Nos. 2 and 4. In the latter appeal filed by the accused Nos. 1 and 3, the challenge is with regard to the conviction entered against them for the offence under S. 500 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- imposed against each of them. In view of the fact that Crl. Appeal No. 243/94 would be maintainable only before this Court, the other appeal which was actually pending before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam, was also withdrawn to this Court and both were heard jointly.

(2.) SRI. T. M. Mohammed Youseff, who represented the appellants in Crl. A. No. 111/97, submitted that there is no clear evidence to find that the accused 1 and 3 or either of them was the author of Ext. P3 bit notice or that they published it and that even if they are found to be connected with the publication thereof, the contents of Ext. P3 would not be sufficient to find that there was defamation as defined in S. 499 of the IPC. Yet another contention is that the Court below has erred in finding the said accused guilty based on materials deposed to by P. Ws. 9 and 10 which are not actually those contained in Ext. P3.

(3.) POINT No. 1:- Ext. P3 pamphlet, inter alia, contains an imputation that the complainant maintains the behaviour of a street gunda. In Kamalasanan v. Vasudevan and Ors. (1986 KLT 464) the imputation was that the complainant was an ignoramus (hnhctzmjn ). It was held that the adjective was per se defamatory. According to me, the mention in Ext. P3 that the complainant was maintaining behaviour of a street gunda (Ihenn) is also per se defamatory.