HARI NARAIN BUDDHARAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by special leave under Section 417 (3) of the Code of Criminal procedure from an order of acquittal on private complaint by appellant Harnarain. His case was that Shyamlal, Jagram and Deopaldas respondents got a hand bill printed by Laxmanrao respondent No. 4 and this handbill contained statements defamatory of the complainant. Shri Misra has not pressed this appeal as regards laxmanrao respondent No. 4. The impugned handbill is an appeal issued by the accused dissuading the public from giving any subscription to the complainant and one Manohar who is not a party to this case. It was said among other things that harnarain and Manobar raised huge subscriptions which they invested in their own personal business; that formerly they used to repair shoes and were carrying on the business of a shoeblack, but extended the business and were running two boot houses. We would reproduce only the significant portion of the handbill on which shri Misra laid stress. The caption of the handbill is "thagion Se Bacho. "

(2.) HAVING heard both the sides we have reached the conclusion that there is no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal in this case. Without repeating the various grounds traversed by the trial Magistrate, we would content ourselves by referring to the statement of the complainant himself. He admits that he has been the Secretary of the Jatav Sabha and in that capacity subscriptions were raised from time to time and appeals were also issued from time to time to the Jatav community for giving subscriptions. For example in a handnote Ex. D-10 it was appealed that Re. 1/-should be contributed by every Jatav house. He admits that he used to sign the receipts acknowledging payments of subscriptions. But according to him it was the Treasurer who was responsible for the accounts, and he did not even supervise them. When he was asked about the subscriptions made by Natla Ram and Sumer Singh, he could not give a satisfactory answer, but stated that he did not make any inquiry. When asked whether he could produce the accounts of the subscriptions raised under receipts signed by him he replied that that could be done by the Treasurer, who, however, was subordinate to him. He admitted that the subscription paid under Ex. D-1 was acknowledged by receipts signed by himself, but the accounts were maintained by Motilal Treasurer, who had died "one month ago" (statement of the complainant dated 22-11-59 ). On the insistence by the accused to produce the record he stated that Ee would be able to inform the Court within four or six days whether the record existed or had been destroyed, and if it was available he would produce it.

(3.) IN the circumstances stated above the order of acquittal passed by the trial magistrate is well founded. The appeal is dismissed.