RADHELAL Vs. SHESHRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Revision Application, the revision-applicant has questioned the legality,, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Darwhaon 21.8.2007 in Criminal Appeal No.23/ 2004 (old registration No.33/1999), whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was pleased to set aside the conviction order passed by the trial Magistrate, Darwha, in Criminal Complaint No.830/ 1983 decided on 21.4.1983 recording the conviction of Sheshrao Anandrao Lad under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC). The revision-applicant appears to be the son of late Radhelal Mangalal Jaiswal. The said Radhelal had filed complaint for offence punishable under section 500, IPC pleading that he was having respectable status in Mahagaon (Kasaba), a village in District Yavatmal. He also held license of liquor shop apart from owning movable and immovable property. According to said Radhelal, the Sarpanch of the village had lodged a false report at Ladkhed Police Station on 17.7.1980 on the basis of which Radhelal was prosecuted for offence under sections 379 and 427 of the IPC. The criminal case resulted in acquittal of Radhelal on 30.11.1982 arising from Criminal Complaint No.226/1980. According to said Radhelal he was mischievously and deliberately prosecuted on the pretext of false allegations thereby lowered down his prestige, position and status amongst his well wishers, relatives and friends as, according to him, the title over the land and well disputed by Sarpanch without verification mischievously and maliciously by lodging police report. The learned trial Magistrate, Darwha who heard the Complaint Criminal Case No.830/ 1983 had convicted the accused-Sheshrao Anandrao Lad of Mahagaon (Kasaba) for offence punishable under section 500, IPC and was pleased to sentence him to suffer SI for three months and fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/ - in default, to undergo S.I. for two months.

(2.) I have heard submissions at the Bar and also perused the impugned judgment and order. It is not in dispute that Radhelal Jaiswal died long back on 27.4.2005. According to learned Advocate for the revision-applicant, son of late Radhelal continued the proceedings on the ground that Radhelal was defamed by the accused who was Sarpanch of village Mahagaon (Kasaba) at the relevant time. It is contended that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Darwha ought to have dismissed the appeal considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the Sarpanch had deliberately raised dispute in respect of well and ownership thereof. It is further contended that the reputation of late Radhelal is required to be protected by continuing the proceedings by his son Prakash Radhelal.

(3.) On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that in the impugned judgment and order, the learned Appellate Judge did consider the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal submissions made in respect of different judicial precedents and appreciated that it was a dispute in respect of ownership of the well while complainant had raised contention that the well was owned by him pursuant to purchase under registered sale deed in the year 1940. It was disputed by the accused at the time of giving report to the police that the well was situated on Government land and the land was recorded in the name of the Government. It was also contended that the Government land situated within Gram Panchayat limits are transferred to Gram Panchayat, further contending that the villagers were using the well for fetching water. The learned Appellate Judge also considered that till 31.9.1981 well was not recorded in the name of the complainant and which was shown situated in Government land. Under these circumstances, the learned Appellate Judge concluded that accused had given report under a bona fide belief that the wel I is owned by Gram Panchayat and in that respect produced oral and documentary evidence on record. Thus, it cannot be said that the report given by the accused against the complainant was malicious or without probable cause. Thus, it was concluded by the first Appellate Court that the bona fide act of the accused was covered under exception Section 499 of the IPC, before recording the acquittal for the accused. Learned Advocate for the respondent invited my attention to first and second exception to Section 499 of IPC to argue that there was no commission of offence of defamation as any opinion expressed in good faith by a public servant would not amount to offence of defamation when public servant was acting in discharge of public functions. Reference is made to Section 21 of the IPC : Clause fifthly, in order to submit that a member of Panchayat assisting a Court of justice is included within the scope of definition of "public servant" defined in Section 21 of the IPC. Thus, considering the legal provision and conclusions arrived at by the Appellate Court, I think it would not be open to this Court in revisional jurisdiction to set aside an order of acquittal at the instance of son of the complainant, who expired long back on 27.4.2005 in the absence of any grave error of law or blatant error on the point of law. I do not find any glaring defect or manifest error on the point of law nor the impugned judgment resulted in flagrant miscarriage of justice in view of the conclusions recorded by the Appellate Court. Therefore, no ground is made out for showing indulgence in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The Revision, therefore, is dismissed. No order as to costs.