NAGENDRAN SERVAI Vs. BALAKRISHNAN SERVAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN C.C. No. 160 of 1985, the Petitioner was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 500 and 504, IPC. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 350/ - for each of the offences, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Out of the fine, if collected, Rs. 600/ - was directed to be paid as compensation to the Respondent, on whose private complaint this prosecution was initiated. The aggrieved Petitioner challenging the sustain -ability of the verdict of the trial Magistrate preferred Criminal Appeal No. 186 of 1986, before the Court of Sessions, Pudukkottai. The appellate Court concurred with the findings rendered by the trial Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.

(2.) THE prosecution case will have to be stated in brief, for the disposal of this revision. The Respondent was a member of the Legislative Council in the erstwhile State of Pudukkottai for over 14 years. He is a man of status and was a member of the State Legislature and certain Select Committees. He was also for short time a Minister under the erstwhile Pudukkottai King. He was a member of the Legislative Assembly, Tamil Nadu, for about five years. He was widely respected in his locality.

(3.) IN both the courts below, the Petitioner had claimed benefit of Exception 9 to Section 499, I.P.C. and pleaded alibi as well. For a variety of reasons stated, in the judgment of both the courts below, rightly it was held, that there was not even an iota of evidence to facilitate application of Exception 9. It was specifically found, that there Was no good faith in the defamatory words aimed at the Respondent and no question of protection of interest of the Petitioner himself was involved in making of imputations, against the Respondent. It was also not intended for protection of any other person or for public good. D.W. 1 was mainly examined to substantiate the plea of alibi, but his evidence did not inspire confidence, and was rightly rejected by both the courts below. It appears from the evidence, that P.W. 2 is more closely related to the Petitioner than the Respondent. His evidence fully corroborates the version of the Respondent who had examined himself as P.W. 1. The Petitioner had not taken any step, even to remotely produce evidence, to justify his action. There was not only lack of good faith, but recklessness on the part of the Petitioner is patent. The Petitioner had not exercised due care and attention, while making imputations of a grave nature, which are per se defamatory, against the Respondent.