P RAM NARAYAN Vs. L P PICHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Estate, Bombay, dated 31-8-1976 in Criminal Case No. 144/S of 1974. The case was initiated at the instance of the complainant who is the appellant before me. The charge was that respondent No. 1 (who will be referred to hereafter as accused No. 1) and three others had defamed the complainant and as such had committed an offence punishable under section 500 I.P.C. I may state here at the outset that though all the four accused have been acquitted by the learned Magistrate, the present appeal is filed against accused No. 1 only. The order of acquittal in favour of the remaining three accused has, therefore, become final.

(2.) At the outset, I may very briefly state the substance of the grievance of the complainant against the accused. All the accused are quite respectable persons, employees and officer of the State Bank of India. They have formed a co-operative housing society and accused No. 1 is the Secretary of that society. They entered into an agreement with he complainant, who is a builder, for construction of their residential building and in the quibblings which started at the later stage in the transaction, accused No. 1 addressed a letter dated 28-3-1977 to the complainant and a copy of the same was sent by accused No. 1 to the Architects of the society. I will refer to the said letter hereafter as the impugned letter. The defence contention in the beginning was that at the most it could be said to be a strongly worded letter. It is not disputed before me that it is even a vituperative letter, but only that much. The complainant, however, contends that the letter does not stop at mere making the allegation vituperation, but it proceeds to defame. He contends that it is not only a vituperative letter but it is a rank defamatory one. The learned Magistrate has taken the view that the impugned letter is nothing but a strong reaction on the part of the accused to a similar worded earlier letter by the complainant. The learned Magistrate seems to imply that the letter does not go beyond the stage of vituperation. The complainant is seriously aggrieved by the said view of the learned Magistrate. The question is whether the grievance of the complainant is justified.

(3.) I will proceed to state the facts which are relevant for the purpose of appreciating the grievance of the complainant and the case of accused. I make it clear here that I am not merely stating the prosecution case. I am stating all the facts relevant to the case. The facts are partly admitted facts and partly they are the allegations of the prosecution initially but they had been alleged by accused No. 1 as he unfolded his case during the trial. Those facts are stated partly because they are no longer in dispute but mainly with a view to complete the chronology of events.