PRAYAGDUTT TIWARI Vs. GAJADHAR PRASAD TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is against the acquittal of the respondent for the offence under S. 500, Indian Penal Code, by the Sessions Judge in appeal. The trial Magist ­rate had convicted the respondent for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.500/ - and to further pay Rupees 200/ - as expenses to the complainant under S.546 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Old).

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the deceased complainant Prayagdutt Tiwari was a respectable citizen of Balaghat and he had a long standing in the public life. He was a member of Balaghat Municipal Committee for about 15 years, Secretary of Ram Mandir Trust Committee for about 28 years and was a printer and publisher of the weekly paper 'Jan Pukar' published from Balaghat. The present complaint was filed by the complainant on the allegation that the respon ­dent published one letter Ex. P. 1 in the Balaghat Times on 27 -9 -1967 under his signature under the heading 'Lokwani. The letter refers to the complainant and the name of the complainant is mentioned in the very first line of the letter. According to the complainant, the imputations made in the aforesaid letter published in the Balaghat Times on 27 -9 -1967 are defamatory per se as they cast aspersions against the integrity of the complainant and purport to disfigure his image by depicting him as a dishonest person, hypocrite of the first degree and of having constructed his house by misappro ­priating the funds of the Trust. The pub ­lication was maliciously made and was done with the intention to cause injury to the re ­putation of the complainant. The respon ­dent in his statement submitted that the im ­putations were neither false, nor unjustified nor intended to harm the reputation of the complainant nor they were mala fide. According to him, this letter was published in reply to the editorial in Jan Pukar dated 21 -9 -1967 under the heading 'Mr. Poison (Vishdhar Ji). According to the respondent, there was long standing dispute between the complainant and himself over property because the complainant has been disowning the respondent as his adopted son. After as ­sessing the evidence, the trial Magistrate held that the imputations were defamatory per se, they were not made after due care and caution and were not based On truth. He, therefore, held the respondent guilty under S.500 I. P. C. and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.500/ - or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, and to further pay Rs.200/ - as compensa ­tion to the complainant under S.546 -A of Cr. P. C. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the imputa ­tions made by the respondent in Ex. P. 1 were protected under exception 9 to S.499, I. P. C. The letter in question creates an impression that the complainant is not so innocent and honest in his private as well as in his public life as he appears to be and he is a man of dual personality. The allega ­tions though made in a sarcastic manner ap ­pear to be justified in view of the admission of the complainant that though he was having income of Rs.10 to 12, thousand per annum, he was not paying income -tax and that once he was found guilty for corrupt practice and was disqualified from being a member of the Janpad Sabha as he had done certain printing work for the Janpad Sabha while being a member of the Sabha.