DEV RAJ Vs. SANDHYA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent herein had instituted a complaint against the complainant/petitioner herein before the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Solan qua the complainant/petitioner herein demanding illegal gratification for meteing transport expenses for visiting various places for verifying the position, status and tagging of cows purchased by the members of Self Help Group, Badhal, headed by the respondent herein. Consequently, FIR No. 11 of 2010 of 21.06.2010 stood registered against the complainant/petitioner herein constituting therein commission of offences by him under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In sequel to the registration of the FIR, the complainant/petitioner herein faced prosecution before the learned Special Judge, Solan. The Charge for which he came to be tried stood concluded by the learned Special Judge, Solan to remain unsubstantiated whereupon it pronounced an order acquitting the accused/complainant/ petitioner herein. In an appeal carried therefrom by the State of Himachal Pradesh before this Court, this Court pronounced a judgment in affirmation to the judgment recorded by the learned Special Judge, Solan.

(2.) The pronouncement of the learned Special Judge, Solan in Corruption Case No.10-S/7 of 2010 occurred on 29.07.2011 whereas the pronouncement of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 445 of 2011 as arouse therefrom whereupon this Court rendered findings in concurrence to the findings rendered by the learned Special Judge, Solan, stood rendered on 13.07.2012. The complainant/petitioner herein, accused in Corruption Case No.10-S/7 of 2011, embedded upon a complaint instituted by the respondent herein before the Police Station SV &ACB, Solan, whereupon he by concurrent verdicts stood pronounced to be not guilty, instituted a complaint against the respondent herein on 6.11.2013 before the learned trial Court. In the aforesaid complaint instituted by the petitioner herein before the learned trial Court he alleged therein of publications in daily newspaper "Divya Himachal", occurring in its edition of 22.06.2010, relevant portion whereof stands extracted hereinafter besides a publication occurring in Hindi newspaper "Punjab Kesari", in its edition of 22.06.2010, relevant portion whereof also stands extracted hereinafter also publications occurring in "Amar Ujala", "The Tribune" and "The Hindustan Times" wherewithin echoings stand encapsulated qua in pursuance to a complaint instituted against him by the respondent herein before the SV & ACB, Solan, his standing caught red handed while receiving illegal gratification besides theirs holding revelations of his coming to be arrested constituted libelous material whereupon his reputation in society stood lowered. The relevant portion of a news item published in "the Divya Himachal" edition of 22.06.2010 reads as under:-

(3.) On consideration of preliminary evidence adduced before the learned trial Court, it proceeded to order for the summoning of accused/respondent herein. Against the summoning orders pronounced by the learned Magistrate, she preferred a revision petition before the revisional Court, revision petition whereof came to be accepted whereupon the summoning orders impugned therebefore stood quashed and set aside. The complainant/petitioner herein stands aggrieved by the rendition of the revisional Court whereupon he stands constrained to institute the instant petition before this Court, wherein he concerts to reverse the findings recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Solan in Revision Petition No. 3-ASJ-II/10 of 2014. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan had meted deference to the provisions of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. holding therewithin a dictat of the apposite period of limitation for an aggrieved setting in motion the criminal machinery qua offences punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years, being a period of three years, in conjunction therewith it concluded qua with the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed qua proven commission of an offence under Section 500 of the IPC, being a period of three years besides in tandem thereof with evidently the apposite complaint standing instituted before the trial Court after three years elapsing since the publication of purported libelous matter(s), he concluded of the complaint being barred by limitation besides it being not maintainable.