F A PONCHA Vs. M MEHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner F. A Poncha, is the sole accused in C.C.No. 2981 of 1990 pending on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, initiated on a private complaint preferred by respondent Meherjee, alleging that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Sec. 500 I.P.C.

(2.) In this petition preferred under Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. to call for the records and quash the pending prosecution as not maintainable and an abuse of process of Court, Mr. M. Ravindran, learned senior counsel, contended that there was no publication of the defamation alleged, for not even the name of any single member, to whom publication was made, does get itself revealed, from the averments made in the complaint. Further, the complaint does not disclose the reaction of those unnamed members. He contended that the letter despatched by the peti tioner was not so done with intent to defame, but with sustaining interest, that racing must be clean and members of the public should not be cheated. He then urged that list of witnesses had not been appended to the complaint and that was against the mandate of Sec. 204 Cr. P.C. In passing, he mentioned, that, on the available facts, Explana tion-4 to Section 499 I.P.C., must be taken note of, as to when exactly an imputation can be said to harm a person's reputation.

(3.) On these grounds, I have heard Mr. Satheesh Parasaran, learned counsel representing the re spondent. He pointed out, that the averments in the complaint, will clearly indicate the persons identifiable, to whom defamatory allegations, had been forwarded. He also submitted, that harm to the reputation of the respondent has been averred, though not in a very detailed manner. He submitted, that the confidential letter dated 19-8- 1989, forwarded by the petitioner along with this communication, was quite sufficient, at-least prima facie, to indicate mens rea of the petitioner, to commit the offence alleged. He argued, that the definite allegation, of the defamatory letter, having been forwarded to a set of determinate group of people, would be sufficient to constitute publication, in the eye of law. He admitted, that a list of witnesses had not been appended to the complaint, but added, that such non-listing can not be held to be prejudicial to the case of the petitioner, for, before the commencement of trial, it will always be open to the Magistrate to direct a list of witnesses to be furnished, so that the petitioner may not be taken unawares, in the process of trial.