DURGA PERSHAD CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Durga Pershad Choudhary was convicted by the Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Ajmer City, Ajmer, of an offence under sec. 500, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- vide his order dated 27th March, 1965, in Criminal original Case No. 24 of 1962. On an appeal by the petitioner, the Sessions Judge, Ajmer, maintained the petitioner's conviction but reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 250/-; in default, to one month's simple imprisonment. The petitioner has approached this Court in revision to challenge his conviction and sentence. The relevant facts may be stated as follows: -

(2.) ONE Vishwadeo Sharma, proprietor, Aditya Mudranalya, Ajmer, filed a complaint, on 21-6-1961, against the petitioner under sec. 500, Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that the accused-petitioner, publisher, printer and editor of the daily "navjyoti' published and printed certain matters concerning the complainant under the caption "press Karamcharyon men asantosh" on the back page of daily Navjyoti dated 23rd of May, 1961. The complainant alleged that the allegations of facts printed were false and defamatory and were published with intent, knowledge and belief that the same would harm the reputation of the complainant. The statement in the Navjyoti in respect of which the petitioner was prosecuted, as translated into English by the Sessions Judge, reads as follows: - "discontentment AMONG PRESS EMPLOYEES" These days press employees of Ajmer are being very much ill-treated. Such news has been learnt by us from a statement from press employees. It has been stated in a joint statement of these persons that unless some effective steps are taken against some press owners among whom Aditya Mudranalaya, Adarsh Press are worth mentioning, the economic condition of press workers of Ajmer would become all the more pitiable. The aforesaid press owners are bent upon annihilating the labour and they wish that press workers should not put forward their reasonable demands and should not even complain against ill-treatment meted out to them. There are many instances to support this. Recently, Shri Vishwadev Sharma, proprietor of Aditya Mudranalaya withheld payment of wages of three employees in spite of notice by them. On protest by certain other persons against this, the said gentleman (Mahashya) abused them and also told them that he would do as he pleased and that they might do whatever they desired. Further, he told them that he would not make their payment. Not only this, the proprietor of Aditya Mudranalaya went to the extent of telling these persons that they would be turned out by force and they should go to the Court if they wanted payment. There are many such incidents by the said press owners with the labour. There are some instances of press workers being turned out without serving them with notices while there are others where many workers have been forced to work in spite of service of notices by them. In Ajmer, there are so many such workers who are unemployed The main reason for this is that the said press owners behave in a dictatorial (Nadirshahi) manner by calling Railway employees in the night to work at lower rates. They assure them that no harm would befall them. This has resulted in making railway employees take leave from their workshops and work on election lists day and night. The result of this is that many press workers who depend on this work have become unemployed. They are not paid wages at the rate which should be given to them. It is also stated that a large number of these employees have presented a petition to the Collector, Superintendent of Police & Railway authorities with their signatures for enquiry into their complaint of tyranny.

(3.) JUDGING the case in the light of the observations, I may say that the only material relied upon by the petitioner's counsel in support of his plea of the truth of the allegations is the receipt Ex. P-4 signed by Omprakash. The learned counsel emphasised the expression "unchit thanukhua" appearing in the receipt and contended that this expression shows that the wages of Omprakash must have been with held by the complainant. I do not find any justification for inferring a conclusion as to the withholding of wages from such a casual expression particularly when Omprakash as one of the defence witnesses admitted having received his wages in full. The truth of the allegations having not been established, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of Exception I, the question of the public good apart.