M CHANDRAN Vs. F FANTHOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M. Chandran, the petitioner herein. Upon hearing the petitioner-in-person and also on perusal of the available materials on record, I am of the view that this matter can be disposed of finally on its own merit, at this stage, and accordingly, this revision-petition is hereby disposed of with the following short order :- Order dated 24-12-2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (East and North) Sikkim at Gangtok in Criminal Case No. 2 of 2002 is the subject-matter under challenge in this revision-petition. The facts of the case in a short compass are as follows :- The petitioner filed a complaint petition under S. 500, I.P.C. read with S. 499, Indian Penal Code against the present respondent by contending inter alia, that the respondent had published defamatory remarks made by one Shri K. N. P. Nair in four letters against the petitioner-complainant including the related "Explanatory Note" containing the defamatory remarks against the petitioner. Some of them are :- (i) that the complainant being a divorcee (then) was a serious blot and stigma, and (ii) that the complainant had allegedly volunteered to type out his appointment order and changed his designation from 'Vice-Principal (Administration)' to 'Vice-Principal,' and there is also an allusion that the complainant's resignation from the I.T. Department deserved investigation as the cause. On the basis of the said complaint-petition, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (East and North), Gangtok took up the matter and thereafter, under her related order passed in Criminal Case No. 27 of 2000 dismissed the complaint-petition on 9-5-2001 and being aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the petitioner-complainant filed a revision-petition which was finally disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge, East Sikkim on 20-2-2002 in the connected Criminal Revision Case No. 4 of 2001 thus remanding the case for rehearing on the matter of limitation and, lastly, the matter was transferred to the Court of Sessions Judge who disposed of the matter thus holding that the complaint filed by the petitioner is time-barred under the impugned order dated 24-12-2002. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 24-12-2002, the petitioner filed this revision-petition.

(2.) At the very outset, Mr. M. Chandran, the petitioner herein contended that there is no delay in filing the complaint-petition, inasmuch as, about 4-5 days' prior to the appearance of the respondent before the Court concerned on 31-3-1997, the petitioner had inspected the case records and for the first time he found photo copies of the related 4 letters written by Mr. K. N. P. Nair containing defamatory remarks against the petitioner which were made known to others by the respondent, and the petitioner also found that for more than a year those papers were in an open condition and the offence is continuing one for which fresh cause of action arose. That being the position, there is no delay in filing the complaint-petition and the same is not barred by limitation Mr. M. Chandran argued. It is also submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner had not been given opportunity of being heard for enabling him to explain the delay, if any, in filing the related complaint-petition. According to Mr. M. Chandran, the learned Court below had failed to consider material facts rather misappreciated the provisions of law as laid down under S. 468 read with S. 469, Cr. P.C. while passing the impugned order. Supporting his contention on the issue of limitation, Mr. M. Chandran has drawn my attention to a copy of paragraph 36 of a related complainant's affidavit dated 30-7-1999 and submitted that in the month of March, 1997, a few days before the defendant/respondent herein appeared in the Court concerned, as witness he had occasion to inspect the case records and then for the first time he saw amongst the records an open folder in which the said photo copies of the four letters had been openly placed, and, as such, the findings of the learned court below under the impugned order that complaint is time-barred, are not tenable under the law and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is also argued by the petitioner that even assuming but not admitting that there is delay and the complaint-petition is barred by limitation, there shall be no automatic discharge of the accused. Supporting this submission, Mr. M. Chandran had relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Rakesh Kumar Jain v. State through CBI, New Delhi, respondent reported in (AIR 2000 SC 2754)

(3.) At the hearing Mr. A. Moulik assisted by Mr. N. Rai, learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondent.