P M ABUBACKER Vs. P J ALEXANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd accused in C.C. 139/95 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court - I, Ernakulam is the petitioner. The petition is filed to quash Annexure-A4 order dated 6.6.1995 passed in C.M.P. 950/95 in C.C. 139/95.

(2.) On the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent 4 accused persons including the petitioner, as the 4th accused were prosecuted for the offences punishable under S.500, 501 and 502 r/w S.34 IPC alleging that an article containing false and defamatory imputations against the respondent was published in the Sunday Weekly for the week between 17th and 23rd June, 1990, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. The trial was proceeded with and after completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under S.313 Cr.P.C. and the evidence of some of the defence witnesses was recorded the complainant respondent filed a petition on 31.12.1994 to compound the offence as against the 3rd accused, which was allowed by the Court. Accordingly the offence against the 3rd accused was compounded, he was acquitted under S.320(8) of the Cr.P.C. and the case against accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 was re-filed as C.C. 577/94. Subsequently on 4.4.95 the respondent complainant filed a petition to compound the offence against the 2nd accused which was also allowed by the Court. The 2nd accused was acquitted under S.320(8) of the Cr.P.C. after compounding the offence against him and the case against accused 1 and 4 was re-filed as C.C. 139/95. Since the 1st accused was absconding, the case against him was split up. At that stage, the respondent complainant filed C.M.P. 950/95 under S.311 of the Cr.P.C. to examine the 3rd accused Sreedhar Pillay as a witness in the case.

(3.) In the petition filed by the respondent before the lower court, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-A2, it is alleged that the 3rd accused - Sreedhar Pillay authorised the impugned article and therefore, the source of origin of the defamatory article is something which is known exclusively to him. It is also alleged that the origin of this false information is a matter in issue for a just and correct decision in the case and it is seen from the documents submitted by Sreedhar Pillay in the form of an affidavit and petition that it was Sri. T. Madhusoodanan, the present D.G.P., junior to the complainant who gave the false information for publication and it has been brought out that Sri. T.V. Madhusoodanan deliberately invented this false information for publication for the purpose of achieving official advantage over the complainant as he was junior to the complainant in the Kerala cadre of I.P.S. It is further stated that only by examining Sreedhar Pillay that the most relevant facts regarding the actual authorship of the impugned publication will be made out and without his evidence the case will have to be decided against the other accused persons leaving the main culprit who deliberately engineered this publication, and therefore, his evidence is highly necessary for the ends of justice and to bring to book the actual culprit also whose name could not be included in the complaint in the array of accused.