NARAYANAN Vs. GANGADHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant M. K. Narayanan is the complainant in C. C. No. 104 of 1977 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class magistrate, Ernakulam. THE complainant is a resident of Karunagappilly. On the relevant date he was a Councillor of the S. N. D. P Yogam and the President of the Karshaka Congress, Krishnapuram Block. He is a social worker and had functioned as the President of the S. N. D. P Union, Karunagappilly, Devaswom secretary, S. N. D, P. Yogam and also as a member of the Devaswom Committee at ochira Devastanam. Prior to his functioning in the above capacities he was in the service of the Government of Kerala He was the Business Manager to sreemoolam Hanloom Weavers Apex Society and was promoted as Assistant Registrar of Industries (Co-operative Societies) until his retirement from Government service According to the Complainant, he had been serving the Government departments with all sincerely and retired from service with unimpeachable antecedents. After retirement he rendered service in the Sankar sbastiabadipurthi Memorial Hospital conducted by the Sree Narayana Trust medical Mission, Quilon. According to the complainant, he was being held in high esteem by the public at large and his community in particular in recognition of the various services rendered in different capacities. According to him, he had not given any room for complaint either when he was in government service or thereafter. THE accused is an Advocate practising at varkala. THEre was a suit relating to Sree Narayana Trust and the various institutions belonging to and under the management of the trust, for the preparation of a scheme for the management of the trust. An appeal, A. S. No. 689 of 1972 was pending before this court. A control committee was appointed to supervise the management of the trust and the institutions thereunder. THE second respondent in that appeal is the accused in the present case. He was also one of the members of the control committee to supervise the management. THEre was an allegation that appointments were made to the service of Colleges and the Medical Mission without previous sanction of the committee. From november, 1972 onwards the complainant was working as an Assistant Secretary of the Sree Narayana Trust Medical Mission and later on as Administrative assistant, on a salary of Rs. 300/- per month. THE Chairman of the control committee asked information about the appointment as the control committee had not been appraised of the fact of appointment; neither was its sanction obtained. Since no information was given the salary of the complainant was disallowed. On 20th of March, 1973, the respondent accused filed C. M. P. No. 3378 of 1973 seeking orders of this Court for directing the counter-petitioners in that petition to abide by the decisions of the committee, to remove the third counter petitioner from bis position as the person managing the affairs of the Sree Narayana Trusts Medical Mission and for other reliefs. An affidavit was sworn to by the respondent-accused in support of the petition, which is marked as Ext. P1 in the present case. In Para. 7 of the affidavit reference was made to the appointment of the complainant as Administrative Assistant. According to the deponent it was an absolute waste of trust fund to have either assistant Secretary or Administrative Assistant, especially when such appointment was made without reference to the control committee. THE deponent further stated "to add injury to insult Shri M. K. Narayanan is also a person involved in a charge of misappropriation of funds while he was in service. " According to the complainant, this passage is highly defamatory so far as he is concerned. THE allegations made are false to the knowledge of the accused. THE complainant was never proceeded against for alleged misappropriation of funds. THE averment in the affidavit is per se defamatory and is vitiated my malice. THE statement was made by the accused knowing that the imputation would harm the reputation of the complainant. THE allegations were denied in the counter affidavit filed in the above petition, which is marked as Ext. P11. But inspite of the denial the accused in his reply affidavit reiterated that the complainant was guilty of misappropriation of funds while he was in service. According to the complainant, several members of the S N. D. P. Yogam and Sree Narayana Trust had occasion to go through the affidavit sown to by the accused and it had the effect of lowering the status of the complainant in the estimation of these people. Enquiries were being made with the complainant in respect of the allegations. Since affidavits were filed in a case in which there was considerable public interest inside and outside the State very many people had occasion to know about the contents of the affidavit. THE complainant has been greatly injured on account of the averments in the affidavit. THEre is no justification or truth in the allegations. It was on the above grounds that the complaint was filed alleging an offence punishable under S. 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE complainant examined pws. 1 to 4 and filed Exts. P1 to P12. THE accused denied the allegations and took up the stand that it was his duty as a member of the committee to look after the misappropriation of the trust properties and that he filed an affidavit challenging the appointment of the complainant as the Secretary only in the interest of the Trust and on account of the duty imposed on him by the High Court. According to him, what be had done was on public good. He had no motive or intention to defame the complainant.

(3.) EXT. P10 is the original affidavit, of which EXT. P1 is the certified copy. There is no case that the affidavit EXT. P10 and the reply affidavit EXT. P12 were not sworn to by the first accused. The case of the respondent in his statement under S. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that as a member of the supervisory committee it was his duty that the funds of the trust were not issued. The appellant became a Secretary of the Medical mission Trust against the rules of that trust. When bis appointment was opposed he was allowed salary and allowances as Administrative Assistant. Therefore, the respondent felt that it was his duty to move the High Court in the matter. The motion was made for public good. There was no intention to defame the appellant.