BANDOPANT SATYAPPA SANGLE Vs. RAGHUNATH RAMCHANDRA BIDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14th June, 1979, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangli in Criminal Appeal No, 100 of 1978, whereby he dismissed the petitioners appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sangli, convicting the petitioner of an offence under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-.

(2.) The petitioner is an Editor, Printer and Publisher of the newspaper. weekly Gajashkti. Respondent No, 1, Raghunath Ramchandra Bhide, is an industrialist and is the Managing Director of one concern styled as M/s. Bhide & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Sangli, dealing in manufacturing of various kinds of machinery for more than two decades. The Company manufactures grinding mills, Cement Pipe machine, power looms and heavy casting, etc. The petitioner published three articles in the issues of weekly Gajashakti dated 15-11-1975, 3-4-1976 and 10-4-1976. It appears that during the years 1975-76, some of the workers of this concern were members of an INTUC sponsored Union. D.W. D.K. Patil was the President of that Union.

(3.) Admittedly there were disputes between the workers and the management on demands such as wages, bonus etc. The complainant Raghunath Ramchandra Bhide is known as "mama" amongst his friends and relatives. The case of the complainant is that the imputations made in the said three articles were made with an intention to defame him. He has quoted in the complaint the imputations in the said articles which are defamatory and which are not according to him true. According to the complainant the petitioner-accused, while publishing these imputations did not take proper care and caution to verify the truth of these imputations and that due to these imputations made against him his reputation has been harmed in the public and misunderstanding has been created amongst the people about him. The complainant stated in his complaint that the word mama referred in the article is used with reference to him.