SUDHAKARAN Vs. V S ACHUTHANANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in a private complaint is the appellant as he is aggrieved by the order dated 3.2.2009 in C.C. No. 1192 of 2004 of the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Cr.P.C.), who faced prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the I.P.C.') The case of the appellant is that at the time of filing the complaint which is dated 17.1.2004, he was the Minister for Forest and Sports, Government of Kerala and the President of Kannur District Congress Committee and the accused was the then Leader of Opposition. According to the appellant/complainant, the accused solely with the object of tarnishing the image of the complainant and for selfish political purposes, convened a press conference on 7th July, 2003 at Thiruvananthapuram and according to the complainant, in the presence of press reporters, the accused made an allegation that the complainant, by accepting Rs. 5 crores, caused a loss of an amount of Rs. 18 crores which is due to the State Exchequer and such allegation was baseless and without support of any relevant records and without understanding the real facts and the allegation was reckless. It is the further case of the complainant that by such statement, the accused caused immense damage to the reputation of the complainant, who being a Minister. Thus, according to the complainant, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C., for which he preferred the above complaint.

(2.) It is the further case of the appellant that the court has taken cognizance for the said offence against the accused and the appellant had appeared before the court on three to four occasions, and it is the claim of the appellant that in spite of the hectic public activities of the complainant far away at Kannur, he had appeared before the court and tendered evidence and after partial examination of the complainant on 15.12.2008, it was noticed that complete records of the proceedings, which were in this Court and are very relevant, were not available, though the same were essential for adjudication of the matter. According to the appellant, his application for adjournment of the case on 17.1.2009 was allowed and when the case was posted to 24.1.2009, he had moved an application to condone his absence and prayed for a posting of the case after two weeks, but according to the appellant, the learned Magistrate allowed the prayer only in part and posted the case on 3.2.2009 knowing fully well that the petitioner was finding it difficult to appear before the trial court because of the proceedings pending in the court in Andhra Pradesh at the instance of the rival political party of which the accused is a leader. Thus, according to the appellant, when the case was posted in the trial court on 3.2.2009, an application was moved on behalf of the complainant seeking adjournment. It is also the case of the appellant that another petition was also moved by the junior counsel attached to the office of counsel for the complainant as the grandmother of the junior counsel had passed away, and as such, he was unable to appear in the court below, who was in charge of the case and prepared to instruct the senior counsel. It is the further case of the appellant that the senior counsel could not reach the trial court as he was busy with the cases posted in the High Court on that day. Another counsel Sri. P. Rajkumar, who filed vakalath along with the senior counsel, had suspended his practice years back. But, according to the appellant, ignoring all these facts and after dismissing those petitions, the learned Magistrate issued the impugned order in total disregard of the procedural and legal aspects involved in the case.

(3.) I have heard Sri. K. Ramakumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Sri. Vakkom. N. Vijayan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.