NAZEEM BAVAKUNJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed against the acquittal of the accused in C.C. 12 of 1983 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. Respondents 2 to 5 were arrayed as accused in a private complaint preferred by the appellant. The respondents 2 to 4 are the Printer and Publisher, Managing Director and Chief Editor respectively of the News Paper "Malayala Manorama". The 5th respondent is the Cochin correspondent of the newspaper.

(2.) The complainant has been working as a Senior Grade Assistant in Kerala Financial Corporation. Her husband Bavakunju was formerly an employee working in the Kerala Education Department. During the relevant period he was working as a Headmaster on deputation in Mujahidin High School, Panayappilly, Cochin. In the month of January, 1983 arrangements were made for the conduct of school Youth Festival Celebrations of Kerala at Ernakulam. The complainant's husband Bavakunju was nominated as the convener of the Publicity Committee. The school youth festival started on 25th Jan. 1983. The complainant's husband meanwhile got an employment at Abudabi (Middle East) and he left India on 27-1-1983. On 1-2-1983 the newspaper 'Malayala Manorama carried a news item. The relevant extract which is marked as Ext. P1 (a) is to the following effect. The appellant filed the complaint alleging that the publication of this news item is an attack on the character of the complainant's husband and was intended to malign his reputation and she also alleged that the news item had the desired effect and the same made them appear low in the eye of the public. The appellant examined three witnesses on her side and one witness was examined on defence side. Series of documents were also produced on behalf of the appellant. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence on record acquitted the accused mainly for the reason that the complainant is not a person aggrieved by the publication of the news item and therefore she was not entitled to file a petition. The learned Magistrate also held that the accused were entitled to the protection of exception 9 of S. 499, I.P.C. The finding of the learned Magistrate is challenged by the appellant.

(3.) The first question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to file a criminal complaint in view of S. 199 of the Cr.P.C. Under S. 199 no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Penal Code except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. In the present case the imputation, even according to the appellant, is directed against Bavakunju, the husband of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the imputation has lowered the reputation of Bavakunju in the eye of public and therefore the appellant is really aggrieved by such defamatory statement. The counsel further contended that considering the husband and wife relationship prevalent in our society the wife is to be considered as an indivisible part of the husband and therefore the wife also is really aggrieved in a case where the reputation of her husband was at stake.