GEETA TIWARI Vs. KASHINATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri D.S. Tiwari Advocate, assisted by Sri Bajrangee Mishra Advocate for the opposite party No. 1 and learned AGA. Counter and rejoinder -affidavits have been filed which are on record.

(2.) THE applicant has challenged the order dated 4 -10 -1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in Criminal Revision No. 152 of 1997 confirming the order dated 15 -4 -1997 in case No. 490 of 1995, whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh rejected the complaint filed by the applicant and passed an order of acquittal under Section 500 IPC.

(3.) IT is, therefore, argued that it was a summon case and the order dated 15 -4 -1997 clearly shows that the applicant is acquitted. In the circumstances, an appeal against the said order was maintainable but a revision could not be entertained. Sri Tiwari has emphasized that since the applicant failed to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal, his revision could not be entertained under Section 401(1) Cr.P.C. Second argument advanced by Sri Tiwari is that the complaint was dismissed and the accused were acquitted not only for want of sanction but also after recording his finding that the letter written by the accused to the complainant (applicant) was only with an intention to give her information, which she had asked for from the District Magistrate and in no way, it can constitute a case under Section 500 IPC. Sri Manish Tiwary has emphatically argued that the learned Magistrate proceeded to decide the application in pursuance to the direction of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 461 of 1997. The order was very specific directing the Magistrate to decide the question of grant of sanction by a speaking order. In the circumstances, no order on merit could be passed and it will be treated that the order dated 15 -4 -1997 was only in respect of the question of sanction and it cannot be said that it is an order of acquittal. It is, therefore, emphasized that the order dated 15 -4 -1997 was a revisable order and the learned Sessions Judge committed an illegality while dismissing the Criminal Revision No. 152 of 1997. While dismissing the revision, a finding was recorded that the letter dated 11/12 -7 -1994 was sent by the accused Khand Vikash Adhikari in reply to the letter of the complainant herself, as such it was she, who his invited the information, rather than the Khand Vikash Adhikari had tried to malign the reputation either of the complainant or her family. The Revisional Court had concluded that the letter was written in discharge of official duty, certainly permission to file complaint was required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. It is also noteworthy that the inquiry was made by the complainant on account of the reason that the District Magistrate had passed an order directing the accused/opposite party to look into the matter and give an appropriate reply, which was done by the Khand Vikash Adhikari. It is thus clear that the letter sent in reply was in compliance to the direction of the District Magistrate and therefore, in discharge of his duty. The Khand Vikash Adhikari was duty bound to give a reply and necessary information on account of the order of the District Magistrate. In the circumstances, if the Courts below were of the view that the act done by the accused was in discharge of his official duty, there is no illegality. Besides the allegation of the complaint do not constitute an offence of defamation within the meaning of Section 499 IPC, which defines Defamation as : "499. Defamation. -Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person."