JANAB SULTAN SALAHUDDIN OWAISI Vs. SYED VIGARUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Janab Sultan Salahuddin Owaisi, complainant in C.C.No.249/94 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad aggrieved by the acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate as against A-2/Syed Viquaruddin under Sections 500 and 501 IPC had preferred the present Criminal Appeal. The case of the appellant/complainant is that he is a resident of Hyderabad, had been a Member of A.P. State Legislative Assembly and had been a Member of Parliament too. A-1/Shahid Siddiqui is the Editor of Urdu Weekly Nayee Duniya published from New Delhi and A2/Syed Viqaruddin is the Editor of Urdu Daily Rahnuma-e-Deccan published from Hyderabad. It is also the case of the appellant/complainant that the 1st respondent in this Appeal/A-2 is his opponent. It is also stated that A-1 published its issue of Nayee Dunia on 26-7-1994 and published an article alleging that the appellant/complainant, President of All India Babri Masjid Action Committee entered into criminal conspiracy in the year 1986 along with Imam and Deputy Imam of Jama-E-Masjid, Delhi. Javid Habeeb and Chandra Swamy for reconstruction of Babri Masjid at some other place after its demolition and a new Mosque Akberi Mashid at Delhi and it was also alleged that the appellant/complaint appreciated the alleged move and also had a talk with Kumara Mangalam etc. Certain other facts also had been narrated in the said article published in Nayee Duniya on 26-7-1994. Though Nayee Duniya itself is having large circulation at Hyderabad, the 1st respondent/A-2 with a view to defame the appellant/complainant further published the same in its issue of Rahnuma-e-Deccan dated 26-7-1994. IN the said article published it was stated that there was a game since 1986 and a show organization All India Babir Mosque Committee and that there was a conspiracy among the members of the Committee including the appellant/complainant and under the conspiracy they colluded with P.R. Kumara Mangalam which led to the demolition of Babri Mosque in December 1992. It is also stated that the issue of demolition of Babri Mosque and reconstruction being a burning topic of the Nation, the accused utilized the same for his political ends. The appellant/complainant specifically denied the alleged conspiracy and the other allegations and had stated that these false allegations were made only with a view to lower his prestige and honour among the Indian masses in general including the masses of the old city of Hyderabad and the said allegations are defamatory. Hence the complaint was filed under Sections 500 and 501 IPC which was taken on file.

(2.) The accused pleaded not guilty. On 21-4-1997 the appellant/complainant filed an application under Section 257 Cr.P.C. praying for permission to withdraw the case as against A-1 and the said application was allowed and respondent No.1 herein/A-2 alone was tried. P.W.1, PW-2 and DW-1 were examined. Exs.P-1 to P7 and Exs.D-1 to D-12 were marked. The learned Magistrate after recording finding ultimately recorded acquittal and aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Appeal is preferred.

(3.) Sri Praveen Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the appellant/complainant would submit that the acquittal recorded cannot be sustained inasmuch as in the light of the evidence available on record. It is clear that the publication of defamatory article had been well proved and when such defamatory article had been published the burden would be on the 1st respondent/A-2 to prove that he would fall under any of the Exceptions. The Learned Counsel also would contend that the learned Magistrate erred in arriving at a conclusion that an adverse inference may have to be drawn on the non-production of the material witnesses. The Counsel also would contend that the learned Magistrate was wrong in holding that Ex.P.3 is not per se defamatory. The Counsel also would contend that the 1st respondent/A-2 merely copied the apology letter of A-1 subsequently in Ex.P-4, which would not amount to tendering any apology. The very fact that an application was moved under Section 257 Cr.P.C. praying for permission to withdraw the case as against A-1 and the said application having been allowed the same would not enure to the benefit of A-2 inasmuch as A-2 is not inclined to tender any apology at all. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the ingredients of Section 499 IPC and also had drawn the attention of this Court of Sections 500 and 501 IPC. Strong reliance was placed on Sewakram Vs. R.K. Karanjiya (AIR 1981 S.C. 1514), Sahib Singh Vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1965 S.C. 1451), Sukra Mahto Vs. Basudeo Kumar (AIR 1971 S.C. 1567), Chaman Lal Vs. The State of Punjab (AIR 1970 S.C. 1372), and Munshi Ram Vs. Delhi Administration (AIR 1968 S.C. 702).