GANESH DAS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Ganesh Dass, has a grievance against the decisions of courts below. He was proceeded against alongwith one Thakur Ghandharv Singh under sections 500/501/109 of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint of Suram Singh. The trial court convicted both of them -Ganesh Dass (accused No. 1) for six months under section 500 and for six months under section 501 and a fine of Rs. 500 each under both the provisions and Thakur Ghandharv Singh (accused No. 2) for six months under section 500 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and to a fine of Rs. 500. The matter came before the Sessions Judge, Kangra, in two separate appeals, namely, Criminal Appeal No. 51 of 1984 and Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1984. Here, the appeal of Ganesh Dass was allowed only to the extent that the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to two months under sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code each, to run concurrently, whereas the appeal of Thakur Ghandharv Singh was allowed in toto. Now, Ganesh Dass has approached this Court by way of this revision petition assailing thereby the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kangra, dated 7 -3 -1987 and prays to set aside the same and acquit him of the charges.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the accused is an Editor, Proprietor, Printer and Publisher of Urdu Weekly "Raju". It has its head office at Dhangu Chowk, Pathankot. It is alleged that the accused published defamatory imputations against the complainant in the said weekly on three occasions on 11 -8 -1980, 18 -8 -1980 and 4 -9 -1980. This weekly has circulation throughout Kangra District and it is alleged that this defamatory publication against the complainant was read by the public at large including Om Parkash and Bhola Ram Deputy Rangers in the Forest Department.

(3.) Injured by this defamatory publication, the complainant issued a registered notice (Ex. P. 5) on 1440 -1980 calling upon the accused to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000 as damages. In answer to this, it was revealed by the accused that the publication of the news was based on the information supplied by accused Ghandharav Singh. The complainant complains that the imputations against him are absolutely false and they were published at the instance of accused No. 2 recklessly and without exercise of due care and caution. It is further alleged that the publication of the news was without ascertainment of truth and the accused knew or had reasons to believe that the defamatory imputations were false and were likely to cause damage to the reputation of the complainant. It is further alleged that the reputation of the complainant had been seriously damaged by the false news published by accused No.1 and the offences committed were abetted by accused No.2. The complainant not only examined himself but also examined three more witnesses. In addition, the copies of the Weekly dated 11 -8 -1980, 18 -8 -1980 and 4 -9 -1980 were produced in evidence. On the other Hand, the accused explained his case in his examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He produced Savitri Devi (D.W. 1) and Sada Ram (D.W. 2) in defence. Copy of resolution dated 7 -2 -1980 (Ex. D -1) has also been proved. The accused has not been clear and straightforward in placing his defence. He had been taking one stand after another besides being evasive while giving replies in answer to questions put to him. Accused No. 2 denied having supplied any information to accused No. 1 and stated that he was involved in the case due to enmity.