HARI JAI SINGH Vs. SURESH KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sections 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (here-after referred to as 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 31-8-2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nahan whereby the order dated 1-5-1999 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. (I), Paonta Sahib dropping the proceeding in complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code instituted by the complainant/ respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') has been ordered to be dropped, has been set aside.

(2.) Brief and relevant facts leading to the presentation of this petition are that the complainant filed a complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/petitioners (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused) on the allegations that a news defaming the complainant was published in the Tribune Chandigarh on 31-5-1995 and the said newspaper is run by the accused. It was claimed that the said news defamed complainant and lowered down his reputation in general public. After recording the preliminary evidence, the trial Magistrate directed issue of process against the accused vide qrder dated 12-11-1998. On appearance, the accused filed an application for dropping the proceedings against them on the ground that the trial Court had taken cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by them after expiry of the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 468 of the Code. The learned trial Magistrate accepted the plea of the accused and the proceedings against the accused were dropped. The complainant preferred a revision -petition which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur by the impugned judgment and the order of the trial Magistrate dropping the proceedings against the accused was set aside on the ground that the bar created by Section 468 of the Code would not apply as the complaint had been presented in the Court within the period of limitation and the trial Magistrate was directed to proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law. Being aggrieved, the accused have preferred the present petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners but could not have the advantage of hearing anyone for the complainant as no appearance was entered for him.