BASHIR ULLA KHAN Vs. MOHD RAFI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed by the applicant under Section 378(4) of the Cr.P.C. for grant of Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment dated 23-6-2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal in Criminal Case No. 1164/02 acquitting the respondent from the charge punishable under Section 500 of the IPC.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition in short are that the applicant filed a private complaint against the respondent alleging the offence under Section 500 of IPC. As per averments of the said complaint dated 14-8-1997 the respondent went to the office of CBI Police, SBI, Bhopal and lodged a report against the applicant alleging that the applicant being public servant posted on the post of Foreman in B.H.E.L., Bhopal and also looking after the work as Supervisor of Public Health Department, Piplam had demanded bribe of Rs. 1100/- for completing the work register regarding carried out work by the respondent as Contractor but the applicant did not want to give such bribe. In response of the report an offence was registered by said authority and after holding investigation the applicant was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), r/w Section 13 (2)(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in short the Act. The same was tried by the Special Court constituted under the Act as Special Case No. 75/97 and by judgment dated 21-5-1998 on account of benefit of doubt, the applicant was acquitted from the aforesaid charges. The applicant was arrested and remained on bail during trial. In such circumstances he has lost his reuputation in amongst the persons of society at large by which he suffered mental and physical pain. According to applicant, he lost his reputation by the aforesaid defamatory act of the respondent. Hence impugned complaint was filed to prosecute the respondent under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. by alleging the offence covered by Section 500 of IPC. By taking cognizance, on holding trial the respondent has been acquitted by the impugned judgment, hence this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the applicant having unblemished service career with best reputation in the society and his department. If the aforesaid report dated 14-8-1997 had not been filed by the respondent then circumstances to prosecute the appellant could not be arisen. So at the instance of the respondent the applicant was prosecuted under the aforesaid trial of Prevention of Corruption Act. In such case on appreciation of evidence, offence was not made out. Resultantly the applicant has been acquitted from the alleged charges. It shows that said report was given by the respondent with mala fide intention for causing injury to reputation of the applicant. The petitioner had lost his reputation because of said trial for which respondent is responsible and the same was proved before the trial Court. Hence, in view of available evidence, offence under Section 500 of the IPC was proved in spite of it on wrong appreciation of the evidence and by wrong proposition of law the respondent has been acquitted. So far maintainability of the prosecution is concerned, he has submitted that bar provided under Section 499 was not applicable against the applicant and the complaint was maintainable. But this issue was decided against him under violation of the provision. In support of it he placed his reliance on a decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in the matter of A. N. Gupta v. The State, reported in 1999, Criminal Law Journal 4932 and prayed to allow his petition.