LAWS(MAD)-1990-7-75

P SWAMINATHAN Vs. LAKSHMANAN

Decided On July 27, 1990
P.SWAMINATHAN Appellant
V/S
LAKSHMANAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused, who have been convicted by the trial Court for an offence under S. 500 of the Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- which conviction and sentence have been confirmed in appeal, have filed the present revision challenging the conviction and sentence.

(2.) The respondent preferred a private complaint against the petitioners for the above offence on the following allegations made in the complaint. The respondent, after practising as an Advocate for two years, took up business in sale of silk yarn and was holding several posts as Secretary of the Handloom Weavers' Association, Salem, Member of All India Silk Yarn Producers' Association and so on. He was enjoying a high reputation. Respondents 2 to 4 are the sons of the first respondent and they are living together as a joint family. The third respondent was a broker in Salem in yarn. In that business, he had purchased silk yarn from several merchants and had failed to return the price amount and had utilised them for the benefit of the joint family. The third petitioner approached the respondent and one Mohanraj and Venkateswaran stating that he was being hard presssed by the Silk merchants to whom he owed heavy amounts and that the respondent and others should act as mediators and pacify them and settle the different claims of the creditors. Thereupon, on 7-2-1982, a mediation was held in which the petitioners agreed that the respondent and the other two mediators, should sell the properties of the petitioners on behalf of the petitioner and pay the creditors and in token of the settlement, an agreement was written up signed by all the petitioners. Next day, on 8-2-1982, the petitioners went to the office of the Sub-Registrar and had the above agreement registered. They also handed over in terms of the above agreement, all the documents relating to the properties, to the respondent and the other two mediators. However, on 25-4-1982, the respondent received a notice through a counsel, on instructions from the petitioners stating that with the help of the police and others, the petitioners were taken to the police station and were intimidated and forced to enter into an agreement and they signed the agreement and under compulsion and police help they were taken to the office of the Sub-Registrar to get the agreement registered. On 27-4-1982 in the issue of Malai Murasu, a publication was made by an Advocate, on instructions from the petitioners, containing the same allegations and the public who saw the above notice started thinking ill of the respondent. The reputation enjoyed by the respondent in the public, was lowered. The respondent had been defamed by the petitioners through the above publication.

(3.) During trial, the respondent examined himself as P.W. 1 and examined P.Ws. 2 and 3 to speak to his reputation being defamed and P.W. 4, the Advocate who made the publication in the 'Malai Murasu'. The petitioners pleaded innocence and had no oral or documentary evidence to offer. On the learned Magistrate accepting the complainant's case and convicting the petitioners and sentencing them as shown above and the same having been confirmed in appeal, the present revision has been filed.