THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.505 of 2009 JUDGMENT : This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ P.W.1 against the Judgment dated 04.09.2008 passed in C.C. No.296 of 2004 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kota, whereby the respondent No.1/sole accused was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. 2. The appellant/P.W.1 filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate, for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC alleging that respondent No.1/accused defamed his wife P.W.2 by publishing pamphlets and circulating them. The said private complaint was referred to police under Section 156 (3) CrPC, pursuant to which a case in crime No.107 of 2003 of Kota police station was registered, and after completion of investigation, police laid the charge sheet against the accused. 3. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC, and after furnishing copies of case documents, examined the accused under Section 251 CrPC with regard to the accusation found against him. The accused denied the accusation and claimed to be tried. SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.505 of 2009 2 4. During trial, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were got marked, on behalf of the prosecution. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but the accused denied the same. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. 5. The learned Magistrate, after hearing both sides, found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC and accordingly acquitted him of the said offence. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/P.W.1. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the pamphlets under Ex.P5, got printed and circulated by the accused contain defamatory matter against the appellant and also some imputations were made against wife of the appellant (P.W.2), and the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant substantiates the same, and the appellant is the competent person to file the private complaint; that there is substantive evidence to find the accused guilty, but the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the evidence on record in right perspective and erred in acquitting the accused. Hence, he prays to allow the Criminal Appeal and convict the accused. SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.505 of 2009 3 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/ accused contends that the appellant is not the aggrieved person and in view of the bar under Section 199 CrPC, the complaint filed by the appellant is not maintainable. He further submits that the imputations made in the alleged pamphlet Ex.P5 are not defamatory ones and they are the real facts. He submits that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, in view of the fact that there is no evidence to establish that the accused got the pamphlets printed and circulated them. He submits that considering the evidence on record in right perspective, the learned Magistrate rightly acquitted the accused and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. 8. Now, the point for consideration is whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence alleged against him, and whether the impugned judgment calls for any interference by this Court. 9. Heard. Perused the material on record. 10. This is an appeal against an Order of acquittal. There is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.505 of 2009 4 unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In dealing with the appeals against acquittal, though this Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence, at the same time, it would be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal because there is a presumption under law that accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved and that presumption is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court will not ordinarily disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same. 11. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in Harbans Singh & another v. the State of Punjab1, wherein it is held as follows: (para 8) “The question as regards the correct principles to be applied by a Court hearing an appeal against acquittal of a person has engaged the attention of this Court from the 1 AIR 1962 SC 439 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.505 of 2009 5 very beginning. In many cases, especially the earlier ones, the Court has in laying down such principles emphasized the necessity of interference with an order of acquittal being based only on „compelling and substantial reasons‟ and has expressed the view that unless such reasons are present in an Appeal, Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal (Vide Suraj Pal Singh v. The State, 1952 SCR 193: (AIR 1952 SC 52); Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, 1953 SCR 418: (AIR 1953 SC 459). The use of the words, „compelling reasons‟ embarrassed some of the High Courts in exercising their jurisdiction in appeals against acquittals and difficulties occasionally arose as to what this Court had, meant by the words „compelling reasons‟. In later years the Court has often avoided emphasis on „compelling reasons‟ but nonetheless adhered to the view expressed earlier that before interfering in appeal with an order of acquittal a Court must examine not only questions of law and fact in all their aspects but must also closely and carefully examine the reasons which impelled the lower courts to acquit the accused and should interfere only if satisfied, after such examination that the conclusion reached by the lower court that the guilt of the person has not been proved is unreasonable.” 12. Case of the prosecution is that P.W.2 is wife of P.W.1. At the relevant point of time of the incident, the accused was working as Post Master, Vidya Nagar, and P.W.2 was working as an Assistant in the said Post Office. She was opposing the acts of the accused in allowing unauthorized persons into the Post Office, chit-chatting to them, etc., and when she reported the matter to higher authorities of the Department, the accused threatened her to adjust with him or else he would report the matter to higher authorities and see that SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.505 of 2009 6 her post was cancelled. In the month of December, 2002, when P.W.2 was alone in the house, one R.Sudhakar Raju @ Uppu Raju came to her house and started talking high about the accused requiring her to adjust to likings of the accused. P.W.2 asked him to immediately leave the place and not to stay in the house in the absence of her husband. After arrival of her husband, P.W.2 gave a police report against the accused and the said R.Sudhakara Raju @ Uppu Raju, pursuant to which a case was registered against him and after trial, they were convicted. After lodging the police report, the accused increased the harassment towards P.W.2. Thereafter, P.W.2 was transferred and posted as Post Master of Ozili post office in July, 2003. Public of Vidya Nagar gave complaints against the accused on 5.8.2003 and there was publication in Eenadu District Edition with regard to the complaint against the accused. Exs.P1 to P4 are the publications published in various news papers against the accused. P.W.9-Sarpanch of Chendodu grampanchayat heard that the accused was opening the covers and delivering the same in open condition. On 05.08.2003, a pamphlet was got printed in the press of P.W.5, by the accused and some others, for which he charged Rs.225/- for 500 pamphlets. Ex.P5 is one such pamphlet. On 06.08.2003, the accused came to P.W.3, who was working as paper boy, gave 300 pamphlets and asked him to keep the same in SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.505 of 2009 7 news papers and distribute the same to customers, for which he gave Rs.30/- to P.W.3. P.W.3, in turn, gave 100 pamphlets to P.W.4, distributor of Eenadu for distribution and the remaining 200 pamphlets were kept in news papers viz. Andhra Jyothi and Vaartha, by him and he distributed the same to customers. P.W.4 kept 100 pamphlets in Eenadu news paper and distributed the same. P.W.6, who read the contents of the pamphlet came along with Vaartha news paper, informed P.Ws.1 and 2 about the contents of the pamphlets. After enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 came to know about the act of the accused. A bunch of pamphlets were sent to Ozili to the offices of the MPDO and MRO. 13. It is the allegation that the pamphlets contained wild and defamatory allegations against P.Ws.1 and 2, and the accused got the same circulated through P.W.3 with an intention to defame P.Ws.1 and 2. A perusal of the evidence on record goes to show that there was motive for the accused to cause loss to reputation of P.W.2, in view of the reason that on her complaint, he was forced to face a criminal trial wherein he was convicted. P.W.2 was working as Postal Assistant and the accused was working as Post Master, in the same Post Office. In their evidence, P.Ws.1 and 2 reiterated the allegations in the complaint. There is consistent evidence of P.W.5 SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.505 of 2009 8 that the accused, along with other persons, came to his press and got 500 pamphlets like Ex.P5, printed. It is no doubt true that there is no mention on Ex.P5 with regard to the name of the printing press which printed the pamphlets. There is no grouse or enmity for P.W.5 to depose false against the accused. The contents of the pamphlets are totally in conformity with the answers given by the accused in his examination under Section 313 CrPC. From the evidence of P.W.3, it is evident that on 6.8.2003, the accused gave him 300 pamphlets like Ex.P5 for keeping the same in news papers and delivering the same to customers, for which he gave Rs.30/- to P.W.3. It is also evident from his evidence that out of 300 pamphlets, he gave 100 pamphlets to P.W.4, who is distributor of Eenadu daily. Accordingly, P.Ws.3 and 4 kept the same in respective news papers and delivered the same to customers. From the consistent evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5, it is clear that the accused was responsible for getting pamphlets like Ex.P5, printed in the press of P.W.5 and getting the same distributed to public of Vidya Nagar by keeping the same in daily news papers Eenadu, Vaartha and Andhra Jyothi, through P.W.3, paper boy, and P.W.4, Distributor of Eenadu. P.W.6 categorically deposed that he read the pamphlet like Ex.P5 which was delivered to him by keeping the SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.505 of 2009 9 same in news paper to his house, and he found therein certain allegations against family of P.Ws.1 and 2. 14. The evidence of P.W.9, who worked as Sarpanch of Chendodu Grampanchayat, goes to show that he had information that the accused was opening the letters addressed to public, and that he questioned about the same and complained to higher authorities. His evidence is only a hear-say evidence, and there is no evidence on record to show that pursuant to his complaint, any enquiry is conducted by the higher authorities or not, or about the outcome of the enquiry. 15. Ex.P5-pamphlet is an undated one. It was kept in the same in daily news papers and distributed to all readers of news papers like Eenadu, Andhra Jyothi and Vaartha. The imputations contained in Ex.P5 relate to the period during which P.W.2 worked as Assistant in Post Office, Vidyanagar. After her transfer to Ozili, the pamphlets were got printed and distributed. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is cogent and consistent. Therefore, considering the evidence placed on record, it can be concluded that it is the accused who got printed the pamphlets like Ex.P5 and got the same distributed to public through news papers. SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.505 of 2009 10 16. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the accused that P.W.1 cannot be said to be „aggrieved person‟ in the case on hand, as the alleged defamatory statement in Ex.P5 is directed towards P.W.2, and hence, in view of the bar under Section 199 CrPC, the case cannot be taken cognizance for the offence alleged. As per the admission of P.W.1, no matter is published in Ex.P5 pamphlet against him except mentioning his name. Ex.P5 does not contain any defamatory comments against P.W.1 touching his reputation or fame. All the allegations in Ex.P5 are against P.W.2 only. Therefore, P.W.2 is the affected person/aggrieved person in the case on hand. Section 199 (1) CrPC contemplates that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence. In the case on hand, the private complaint was filed by P.W.1, who is husband of the aggrieved person P.W.2. Therefore, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 500 IPC, based on the complaint lodged by P.W.1, is not maintainable for the reason that there is a statutory bar under Section 199 (1) CrPC. Without there being a complaint by the person aggrieved, the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance of the said offence, is in violation of Section 199 (1) CrPC. Further, after filing of the SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.505 of 2009 11 complaint by P.W.1, the learned Magistrate ought not to have forwarded the same to police under Section 156 (3) CrPC, instead ought to have proceeded further by recording sworn statement of the complainant as contemplated under Chapter XV CrPC. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the accused is entitled for acquittal. The learned Magistrate, upon appreciation of the evidence on record in right perspective, rightly acquitted the accused, and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgment, dated 04.09.2008, passed in C.C. No.296 of 2004 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kota. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed. _____________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J 25.06.2025 PKR/DRK SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.505 of 2009 12 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.505 of 2009 Date 25.06.2025 PKR/DRK