LAWS(P&H)-2010-5-297

SARVJIT SINGH Vs. SURINDER BHARDWAJ AND ORS.

Decided On May 06, 2010
SARVJIT SINGH Appellant
V/S
Surinder Bhardwaj And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant-Saravjit Singh filed a complaint under Sections 499/500/501/502/503 read with Sec. 120B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) against accused- Surinder Bhardwaj, Hari Jai Singh and Mandeep Singh- respondents. Vide judgment dated 1.11.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Fatehgarh Sahib, all the accused- respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them. Hence, the complainant-appellant has filed this application under Sec. 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of leave to file an appeal against the order mentioned above.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the trial Court, in paras 2 to 5 of its judgment, are reproduced here in below:-

(3.) The learned trial Court, while acquitting the respondents of the charge framed against them, has observed in the impugned judgment that from the news item, it could not be said that it referred to the petitioner. Parentage or address of Sarvjit Singh, mentioned in the news item, were not disclosed. It has further been observed that the petitioner himself was facing criminal trial in four FIRs and the witnesses examined by the petitioner were his co-accused in the said cases. Learned trial Court has Criminal Misc.Appeal No.192-MA of 2009 5 further observed that it was not established on record that the respondents had conspired with each other to publish the news item with intention to defame the petitioner. There were other reporters also who have reported the news item and the news item had not been given by Surinder Bhardwaj individually. Hari Jai Singh could not be held to be criminally liable merely on the ground of his being the Editor of the newspaper. The petitioner had also failed to establish any enmity which induced the respondents to publish a false news item to the public with a view to defame him. The letters dated 5.10.2001 did not show that the petitioner had been defamed. The reasons given by the trial Court while acquitting the respondents are sound reasons.