HARI NARAIN Vs. JAGRAM

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 Harinarain. His case was that Shyamlal, Jagram and Deopaldas respondents got a handbill printed by Laxmanrao respondent No. 4 and this handbill contained statements defamatory of the complainant. Shri Mishra 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 Harinarain and Manohar 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 shoe -black, but extended the business and were running two boot houses. We would reproduce only the significant portion of the handbill on which Shri Mishra laid stress. The caption of the handbill is "Thagion Se Bacho". Pichhale samaye ek parcha Shri Harinarayan Ker. Wa Manohar no ehanda ughane ke liye nikalwaya hai. Lashkar Gwalior wa Murar ko Jatwon se anek bahane banakar in logon ne pichhle samaye kafi paisa ekaththa kar apni Bade ki Jute bechne ki dukan wa Mochi OH men jute banane ki duken men lagakar khub paisa kama raho hain. Jab Harinarain wa Chhunnilal Bade per baithkar Juton par palish kiya kaifee the....

(2.) THE trial Magistrate has found that the accused were the authors of this handbill and they published it. He has also found that the first part of the extract quoted by us above is per se defamatory; as regards the second part he has found on the admission of the complainant himself that he did not consider it dishonorable to be a boot -black or cobbler. The accused have been acquitted because of exceptions 1 and 9 to section 499, Indian Penal Code. 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 Exh. 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 Exh. 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 -1959). On the insistence by the accused to produce the record he stated that he would be able to inform the Court within four or six days whether the record existed or had been destroyed, if it was available he would produce it. Main yeh to dekhkar bata sakta hun ki hisab ka rocord hai ya nasht kar diya gaya hai main chhar chhai roz men yeh malum kar sakta hun ki uska hisab ab moujud hai ya nahin. Agar mujhe mil jawega to lasakunga.

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