LAWS(TRIP)-2019-1-1

BILLAL MIAH Vs. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Decided On January 03, 2019
BILLAL MIAH Appellant
V/S
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the convict, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, under section 374(2) of the Crimial P.C. 1973 from the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.09.2004 delivered in case No. CR.01 of 2000 by the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. Initially, the appellant filed the revision petition against the said judgment but later, on his application being Crl.Misc.App.134 of 2013, the said revision petition being Crl. Rev. P. No. 81 of 2004 was covered to a criminal appeal by the order dated 08.07.2013. By the said impugned judgment the appellant has been convicted under Sections 500 of the Penal Code for defaming the defacto complainant [PW-4]. Pursuant to the said conviction, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer 2[two] day's simple imprisonment

(2.) One complaint was filed against the appellant under section 199(2) of the Crimial P.C. 1973 by the Public Prosecutor, West Tripura, Agartala [PW-1] for taking cognizance, inquiry and trial against the appellant for committing the offence of defamation punishable under Sec. 500 of the IPC.

(3.) In order to substantiate the charge, the complainant adduced 4 witnesses including the Editor and Publisher of Tripura Darpan [PW-2] who had confirmed that the appellant had alleged in the meeting convened by Barjala Block Congress that the Chief Minister purchased a luxurious flat secretly at Salt Lake, Kolkata. He has also narrated in the trial that the appellant had challenged that if his allegation was challenged he would disclose the details of the flat. He has also confirmed that he published the content of the letter of the Chief Minister refuting the allegations on 06.06.2000 in his newspaper. Later on, 08.06.2000, the text of the entire letter was published in the said newspaper. PW-2 admitted the relevant news items [Exbt.5] in the evidence. In the cross-examination he stood by his statement. However, he had admitted that he did not produce the manuscript of the report. He had also admitted that the letter of the Chief Minister was translated and then was published in his newspaper.