MUNNI LAL BILAIYA Vs. RADHA BALLABH KATHEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 14th December, 1983 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge. Jhansi allowing the revision preferred by the complainant and setting aside the order dated 2nd March, 1982 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Mau-Garotha discharging the accused for offences punishable under Section 500/501, I.P.C.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the Magistrate had discharged the accused after considering the evidence on record and the revisional court had no jurisdiction to reverse the finding. A perusal of the order passed by the Magistrate would show that no finding was recorded to indicate that from the unrebutted evidence of the complainant and his witnesses, no offence is made out. He referred to the statement of the complainant, who was examined as P.W. 2 and observed that he supported the complaint case that the pamphlets were dated 14th October, 1978 and the accused Munni Lal had distributed the defamatory pamphlets in the public. THE learned Magistrate, however, discarded the evidence on the basis of photostat copy of a receipt, which was filed by the accused. This receipt was dated 17th October, 1978. This document was not proved. In view of this receipt, the learned Magistrate held that the payment for printing of the pamphlets was made by Kishori Lal on 17th October, 1978. THE learned Magistrate inferred that since the payment was made on 17th October, 1978 the pamphlets must not have been available on 14th October, 1978 for distribution. THE revisional court held that in view of the receipt, no such inference could be drawn that the pamphlets were not available for distribution on 14th October, 1978. This inference cannot be said to be erroneous. Firstly, the receipt has not been proved and, therefore, the Magistrate committed illegality in taking this defence evidence into consideration. Secondly. merely on account of the fact that the payment was made on 17th October, 1978, it could not be held that the pamphlets were also handed over on the same date. It is possible that the pamphlets would have been given to the accused on 14th October, 1978 and Kishori Lal would have made payment on 17th October, 1978. Furthermore, without the receipt being proved, it could not be taken into consideration for discarding the evidence of the complainant. At appropriate time, the complainant can show that this receipt is an ante-dated document. THE complainant had stated that the pamphlets were dated 14th October, 1978. Merely, on account of receipt, the evidence of the complainant that the pamphlets which bore the date 14th October, 1978 were distributed on the same date.

(3.) THE revision is dismissed. THE stay order stands vacated. THE learned Magistrate shall dispose of the case expeditiously.