B PRASADA RAO Vs. P VENKAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in C.C.293 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, filed the present appeal against the order of acquittal and the accused were discharged of offences levelled against them. The order of the Magistrate was assailed in this Court on various grounds including the maintainability of the complaint by the complainant arid the finding recorded by the Magistrate while passing the orders of acquittal with regard to the bringing of the respondents as accused on a letter filed by A1 against whom initially the appellant gave the complaint.

(2.) I have gone through the judgment of the Court below. The complainant is a senior advocate of Chilakaluripeta and he seemed to be the founder member of the society which is running S.P.T.R.K.M. High School at Puroshothapatnam, Narasaraopet. Though he was acting as Secretary of the society at that point of time, he filed the complaint in his individual capacity but not as Secretary of the society. Even if the offence alleged against the accused is proved, it cannot be said that the statement, said to have been published in the news papers at the instance of the accused, resulted in defamation of the complainant in his personal capacity as the same is attributable to the management of the society. Hence, it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the Magistrate is an erroneous one.

(3.) With regard to the bringing of these persons as accused by invoking the provisions of Section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is true, initially the complaint was filed against the person who gave the statement and the publishers of that statement. After receipt of summons they appeared before the Court and pleaded guilty for their own reasons. While pleading guilty, A1, the Secretary of the A.P. State Teachers' Union, Guntur District, filed a letter in the Court stating that he issued the statement at the instance of these accused. On the basis of the letter filed by Al, the complainant filed criminal miscellaneous petition to bring these respondents as accused and try them for defamation for bringing disrepute to him in the minds of the public by publishing the said statement. After receipt of notice, the respondents herein raised an objection that they cannot be brought on record as accused as the complainant did not make any whisper in the complaint initially given by him, nor, their names were shown in the F.I.R. Further, the Court can direct a person to be tried along with the other accused only during the course of enquiry or trial and on the basis of the evidence let in by the prosecution, but, in the instant case, no enquiry or trial has taken place and only on the basis of a letter filed by the co-accused the complainant filed the application to bring them on record. But, the Magistrate having rejected all the objections raised by the persons ordered that they should be tried for the offences alleged against them. In fact, the accused herein seemed to have filed an application for discharge from the offence levelled against mem and that petition was also dismissed. Thereafter, they were brought on record as accused on the file of the case and were tried for the offence under Section 500 read with 34 I.P.C. After completion of the trial once again they raised the issue and the Magistrate, forgetting the feet that his predecessor has already passed an order giving reasons to bring the respondents herein as accused and to put them on trial, reconsidered the issue once again and held in favour of the accused. I have no manner of doubt to observe that the Magistrate gravely erred in reopening the matter after the orders passed by his predecessor were allowed to become final. Had the accused aggrieved of the orders passed by the Magistrate, they were always at liberty to question the order passed by the Magistrate in an appellate forum, but, having allowed the order to reach finality and having allowed the trial to take place neither the accused can be permitted to raise the issue again at the stage of final disposal of the complaint nor the Magistrate can reopen the issue again and record a finding different from the one recorded by his predecessor. Judicial discipline requires that the well established procedures should be scrupulously followed by Judicial Officers. Hence, as the Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction in adjudicating the complaint, the finding recorded by the Magistrate to that extent is liable to be set aside and, accordingly, the same is set aside.