R L KALATHIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'Cr. P.C.') has been filed by the appellant (original complainant) M/s.R. L. Kalathia and Company, a registered partnership firm through its partner Mr. Harshadbhai Kalathia against the judgment of acquittal dated 28-2-1985 rendered by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat in Criminal Case No. 64 of 1983. The appellant is referred to as 'the complainant' herein and the opponent Nos. 2 to 5 are referred to as 'the accused' herein. The State of Gujarat is the first opponent in this appeal.

(2.) The complainant, a registered partnership firm, used to deal in the business of construction. The complainant asserted that it had good name and reputation in the business of construction and was getting the work of construction from the Government of Gujarat. In the course of its business the Government of Gujarat had given work contract for construction of a dam in Pigut Irrigation Scheme [as per the notification dated 25-4-1977] (Exh. 106). With reference to this work contract the accused persons made imputations in 'Loksatta' newspaper and by such imputations the complainant felt that the complainant was defamed. Hence, as per the allegations of facts made in the complaint filed by the complainant in the aforesaid criminal case the accused persons were charged with the offence punishable under Sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.'). They were tried before the learned Magistrate and upon conclusion of the case and after hearing the learned Advocates for the purpose, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused of the offences with which the accused persons Were charged. The complainant has. therefore, challenged the judgment and order of acquittal rendered by the learned Magistrate as aforesaid in this appeal.

(3.) It has been. the defence of accused persons that a false case has been filed by the complainant. Loksatta is a responsible and fearless daily and has been performing its duty of reporting honestly. It publishes the reports with regard to irregularities and frauds after inquiring into the matter through its reporters. It publishes the reports of social workers, public workers and political leaders' bona fide for the welfare of people by bringing to their notice, their difficulties and hardships and its intention is never personal or to defame some persons. Its intention is to remedy the wrong which is noticed with a view to see that the administration becomes alive and takes appropriate remedies and steps. The accused No. 3 has asserted that he is a social worker and has been making efforts to see that the Government and its administration is kept alive by making his statement in the public interest. Statement which he had made with regard to Pigut Dam is made bearing in mind the public interest. It has not been made with some prejudice or jealousy against some contractors. His intention has been to see that the Government machinery is kept alive for correcting its errors or drawbacks. According to the accused persons the complaint has been filed with a view to pressurise them for not raising voice against the misdeeds and frauds of public servants. They have asserted that there has been a complaint filed against the complainant in the Court of Walia in respect of theft of forest wood. It has also been asserted that the complainant's name has been placed in black-list. It has finally been asserted that no financial loss has occurred to the complainant, as a result of the publications in question. Neither the Government nor the Government administration has made any clarification with regard to the publications and the statements and reports appearing in publications in question. Even the contractor has not made any public clarification in respect of such reports. Even after passage of long period neither the Government nor the contractor has given any clarification with regard to the news concerning low quality work of Pigut Dam. With regard to the news that there was a breakdown in the well of the dam in question and the well having not remained in existence, no clarification has been made either by the Government or the contractor. The accused No. 4 has further asserted that he has been attending to social and political activities for many years and he has been practising as an Advocate for 7 years in the Court at Bharuch and finally that he has been a Councillor in Bharuch Municipality. He has no ill-will, personal interest, prejudice or enmity with the complainant. He did not have any intention to defame the complainant, but as a part of his duty as an Indian citizen he has acted in public interest and in alarming the Government administration and in eradicating the irregularities of the Government servants. According to his stand a false complaint has been filed against him.