AYYAVU KONAR Vs. CHELLIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by a private party is against the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, acquitting the Respondent against whom a complaint has been filed under Section 500 I.P.C.

(2.) The allegation against the Respondent was that he gave a complaint on 18th January, 1977 to the Sub Inspector B-4 Police Station at Madurai, alleging that the Appellant is a drunkard and that he is heaping bones of human skeleton and other articles before the house of the Respondent, that such a complaint was given on account of prior animosity, that the police have found the complaint to be false, and that on account of this complaint, his reputation in the eyes of the public was lowered. This complaint was taken on file under Section 500 of I.P.C. But the learned Magistrate acquitted the Respondent on the ground that the complaint that was filed before him was not dated 18th January, 1977, but another complaint. Ex. P1, which was filed before the Superintendent of Police, Madurai, on 16th January, 1977, and as the complaint in respect of the allegations which were defamatory was not before him, the Respondent will not be guilty of the offence under Section 500, I.P.C, though the allegations in Ex. Pl are per se defamatory.

(3.) In this appeal, learned Counsel Mr. Arunachalam, appearing for the Appellant, challenges the order of acquittal on the ground that what has been filed before Court is Ex. Pl and that the defamatory matter is contained only in Ex. P1 and that there are no two complaints and that the Court below was wrong in assuming that there are two complaints. According to Mr. Arunachalam, the complaint that was given by the Respondent to the Superintendent of Police was forwarded to the Sub-Inspector of Police and an enquiry was made on that complaint which was ultimately found to be false by the police. But, on that aspect there are no enough materials though my attention was drawn by Mr. Arunachalam to the endorsement made on Ex. P1.