SIRAJUDDIN AH Vs. MUJTABA ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against acquittal. The appellant herein filed a complaint under Section 500 I.P.C. against the 1st respondent herein alleging inter alia that during the course of examination in-chief in Rent Control Case No. 405/1989 on 21-11-1990 at about 12.15 p.m. when an adjournment was sought by his Counsel at his instance 1st respondent herein uttered the word "badmash" and when the appellant and his Counsel had taken exception to it, he repeated the word again. The appellant therefore filed a written compliant before the Court which was taken on file after recording the sworn statement of the complainant. During the course of the trial three witnesses were examined on the side of the complainant including that of the complainant asP.W.1 and his senior counsel and junior Counsel as P.Ws. 2 and 3 respectively. After having appreciated the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 the trial Court acquitted the accused-1st respondent of the alleged offence under Section 500 I.P.C. on the premise that the appellant having cited the Rent Controller and the Bench Clerk as witnesses to the incident in the complaint petition, failed to examine them, and therefore, there was no independent testimony except the interested testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3 who are the senior and junior Counsel of the complainant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant filed this present appeal.

(2.) It may be mentioned at the out set that the way in which the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 was appreciated by the trial Court is not correct. Tune and again it has been made clear by the Courts, that it is not the quantity that is the criterion but the quality. All the witnesses who have been cited as eye-witnesses direct to the occurrence need not be examined. The prosecution will be at liberty to examine its own witnesses necessary to unfold its version. To say that P.Ws.2 and 3 are interested witnesses, the Court below should have given cogent reasons, to dub them as interested witnesses.

(3.) Be that as it may, let us critically examine the nature of the offence alleged. The only allegation levelled by the 1st respondent herein is that he uttered the word "badmash" in the open Court, and according to the complainant its amounts to an offence of defamation. Per se, the words assuming for a moment are proved to have been uttered in the open Court, will not come within the scope of Explanation 4 of Section 499 of I.P.C. For brevity and better understanding, it is expedient to extract the Explanation 4 of Section 499 of I.P.C. which reads as under: Section 499............... Explanation: No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful."