KRISHNASAMY Vs. K ARUNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant in C. C. No. 75 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, is the appellant herein. The private complaint was preferred by the appellant against the accused under Section 200 of Cr. P. c. for offence under Section 499 IPC punishable under Section 500 IPC.

(2.) THE short facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows: the complainant is working as a Village Administrative Officer in Elavanthi village in Thirupur Taluk. The public are having enormous amount of respect and regard for the complainant as well as the complainant's family. The accused have published defamatory statements about the complainant in their magazine by name 'arunan' dated 5. 9. 1994. The accused have published defamatory statement against the complainant. The above said defamatory statements are published at page 2 and 23 of Ex. P. 1-magazine. In the defamatory publication at page 2 of the said magazine the complainant was shown as an animal and it has further been imputed that the complainant has deceived a woman. It has further been imputed that the Court's summons were avoided by paying bribe. The allegation that the complainant has avoided Court's summons is not true. Ex. P. 2 is the summons received by the complainant. Ex. P. 3 is the diary maintained by the advocate in respect of the said case. In the said case complainant was arrayed as A9. The news published at page 23 to the above said magazine is also false. The above said defamatory publication had imputed bad reputation among the public. A notice was sent on 26. 10. 1994. Ex. P. 4 is the advocate's notice. Ex. P. 5 is the acknowledgment. No reply was sent by the accused. On 5. 5. 1995 the accused have published an errata seeking apology for the above said defamatory publication. P. W. 1 joined in his work on 8. 7. 1984. P. W. 2-Deputy Tahsildar Janakiraman informed the complainant that he has been placed under suspension on 28. 11. 1993 and also on 9. 8. 1996. As per Ex. P. 7 and Ex. P. 8 (series), the complainant obtained necessary orders from the State Administrative Tribunal and joined in the work.

(3.) WHEN incriminating circumstances under Section 313 of Cr. P. C were put to the accused, the accused denied their complicity with the crime. The accused have examined Jayapal and Lakshmi as D. W. 1 and D. W. 2 respectively. D. W. 1-Jeyapal is the author of the above said defamatory statement in Ex. P. 1-Magazine 'arunan'. D. W. 2 has alleged that the complainant had abducted her and in this connection the complainant was arrested and thereafter to gather information D. W. 1 met P. W. 1 and at that time the complainant had admitted that the statement published in Ex. P. 1-Magazine are all true.