MATHEW DSOUZA Vs. LUIS ANTONIO DE SOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE four Applicants in this revision who were the original Accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 have challenged their conviction for an offence punishable under Section500 of the Indian Penal Code in the present revision. THE facts leading to the institution of the prosecution and the conviction and sentence of the present Applicants are briefly stated as under : -

(2.) THE Respondent No. 1 in the present revision application, had filed a criminal complaint being Case No. 127/p/1990 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Bicholim against the present Applicants and others for an offence punishable under Section500 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged in the complaint that the present Applicants and others had signed a letter dated-23rd October, 1989 addressed to the Rt. Rev. Fr. Caetano de Cruz Fernandes, Administrator of Confrarias at Paco Patriarchal, Altinho, Panaji. In the said letter the Applicants and others have made allegations against the Complainant/respondent No. 1 to the following effect. THE allegations were that earlier the Complainant had collected big sum of money from India and abroad for the repair of the above Chapel and not even half of that amount was spent, as per the calculations of the Applicants, and when the Complainant/respondent No. 1 was asked to show the account, he replied that the collection came more from the non catholics and till that day the account was not shown to the villagers. THE second allegation of the said letter was that the Complainant had tried to grab the property Udo of the Confraria at any costs and had been using all sorts of tactics for the purpose.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Applicants, it is useful to refer that part of the evidence which has been considered by the two Courts below. The learned Counsel for the Applicants invited my attention to the evidence of P.W.3 Caetano Fernandes. According to the learned Counsel for the Applicants, the said P.W.3 Caetano Fernandes in his cross-examination has admitted but I have some idea that some of the Committee was not handed over the account of Confraria. I was working as Administrator as Confraria at Altinho since 1972-94 May. According to the learned counsel for the Applicants, the evidence of P.W.3 Caetano Fernandes thus suggests that certain account had not been handed over by some of the Committees to the Confraria. Adverting to the evidence of P.W.4 Albert Araujo and particularly to the portion in his cross-examination which reads since accounts are not presented by said Luis Anthony D'souza, Treasurer in the year 1974 we believe that there was a confusion in the Chapel account from 1974 onwards. Since account of 1974 were not presented by said Luis Anthony D'souza and other two members the account cannot be audited. On the basis of this evidence, what was tried to be argued by the learned Counsel is that the allegation which has been made in the letter dated-23rd October, 1989 Exhibit PW1/a stands proved as the Complainant/respondent No. 1 has admitted that he had assisted any collection of money and as per P.W.3 and P.W.4 the accounts have not been furnished. So thus according to the learned Counsel for the Applicants, they are covered by the exceptions 8 and 9 in which according to them a complaint has been addressed. The good faith of the Applicants in making the aforesaid complaint is thus established.