JASHWANTLAL SHOUBHAGYACHAND SHAH Vs. KANTILAL TRIBHOVANDAS AMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner original accused and respondent here- in are Directors of a Co-op. Dairy named Baroda District Co-operative Milk Producers Sangh Limited and as per the complaint they are political rivals. The criminal complaint of defamation is based on a circular letter dt. 15/05/1982 issued by the petitioner-accused as the President of the Co-operative Dairy to the Presidents of the member Co-operative Societies. The respondent-complainant felt offended and defamed by the said letter and hence he has filed Criminal Case No 769 of 1982 in the court of the learned J. M. F. C. Padra and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued process against the petitioner-accused. The petitioner has come to this court for quashing the process.

(2.) The main ground for quashing the process is that the letter speaks for itself and is issued in response to press statements issued by the complainant and has been issued in the ordinary course of business bonafide and without any criminal intention to harm the reputation of the complainant and no criminal offence under sec. 500 I.P.C. is made out.

(3.) That letter states that (the complainant) Kantilal Tribhovandas Amin a Director of the Sangh itself has been issuing press statements from time to time which are injurious to the interest of the producers and the attention is invited to one of such press statements regarding purchase price of the milk. It is stated that with effect from 10-5-1982 a rise of Rs. 2.00 per Kg. fat in the purchase price has been approved by the Managing Committee over the opposition of the complainant Director and circular to that effect should have reached the addresses on 12/05/1982. Inspite of such circular the representation of the complainant Kantibhai that the management is not intending to give the increase to the producers is hollow and misleading and such anti-Sangh activity of Kantibhai is to be declared by every producer. The letter proceeds to point out the care taken by the Managing Committee to look after the interest of the producers and then it is stated that while the Managing Committee is thus anxious and active about getting more price for the producers the claim of Kantibhai to be the only protector of the interest of the producers is injurious to the Sangh. It is further stated in the letter that there is dual policy of Kantibhai and thereby there is harm to the Sangh. It is also stated that if there is disunity within the Managing Committee and if a member makes public statements to harm the reputation of the Sangh there is a case for the members to consider impartially.