- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7437 CRL.A No. 100025 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100025 OF 2017 (A) BETWEEN: KOTRAYYA S/O. CHANNABASAYYA SOPPINMATH, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. BYADAGI-581106, DIST. HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHIVAYOGI S/O. GANGADHARAPPA HUMBI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. BYADAGI-581106, DIST. HAVERI. 2. MALLIKARJUN S/O. MALLAPPA TOTAGANTI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC. EDITOR, PRINTER AND OWNER, ARJUN WEEKLY, R/O. C/O. VENKAPPA KEMPANAHALLI, ATTUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBALI-560064, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; APPEAL AGAINST R2 IS ABATED (V/O DATED 20.03.2025) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, BYADGI IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 371 OF 2007 AND CONSEQUENTLY CONVICT THE RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 499, 500, 501 AND 502 READ WITH 34 OF IPC. YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.06.12 10:21:32 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7437 CRL.A No. 100025 of 2017 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This appeal is directed against the judgment passed in CC No.371/2007, dated 08.11.2016 by the learned JMFC, Byadgi1, whereby, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused/respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the learned Magistrate. The appellant is the complainant and respondents are accused. 3. The abridged facts of the case are that, the complainant is a resident of Byadgi ever since 1994 and he was engaged in the wholesale chilly business at APMC Yard, Byadgi in the name and style of “K C Soppinamath”. When things stood thus, accused No.1 i.e. respondent No.1, who claimed to be a Reporter of ‘Arjuna Patrike’ weekly newspaper, which was 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Magistrate’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7437 CRL.A No. 100025 of 2017 run by accused No.2/respondent No.2, published an article in the said newspaper on 25.07.2007 defaming the reputation of the complainant by making allegation that the appellant is indulged in manufacture and circulation of counterfeit currency notes and due to the same, he became rich. The said newspaper was circulated throughout Bengaluru, the family members and well-wishers of the complainant have read the said article in the newspaper, thereby imputation caused harm to the reputation of the complainant. In that view of the matter, the complainant/appellant filed a private complaint against accused Nos.1 and 2 before the learned Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 read with Section 34 of IPC. 4. Post cognizance of the aforesaid offences, to prove the case against the accused before the learned Magistrate, the complainant examined in total 4 witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and got marked 12 documents as Ex.P1 to P12. 5. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused Nos.1 and 2 for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7437 CRL.A No. 100025 of 2017 the charges leveled against them in the impugned judgment. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant preferred this appeal. 6. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Mallikarjunswamy S Hiremath for the appellant, learned counsel Sri. N.P. Vivekmehta for respondent No.1. 7. Besides urging several contentions, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that on the face of allegation stipulated in the private complaint and deposition of the evidence, the complainant has clearly made out a case against the accused for the offences they charged. According to him, due to the imputation, caused harm to the reputation of the complainant in the estimation of the others. As such, offences punishable under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 read with Section 34 of IPC are complied with. He also contended that the evidence of PW1 to PW4, i.e., the complainant and other three witnesses are consistently deposed that due to the imputation made by the accused, the reputation of the complainant lowered in public image. It is also proved by the complainant that accused No.1 being a Reporter of the said weekly Newspaper and accused No.2-Publisher and Editor, have - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7437 CRL.A No. 100025 of 2017 published the alleged article intentionally to defame the complainant and the said newspaper circulated in many places of Bengaluru. In such circumstance, the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate the evidence of these witnesses in right perspective, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal and to convict accused No.1 for the charges leveled against him. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/accused No.1 by supporting the impugned judgment, inter-alia, contended that the learned Magistrate after meticulously examining the entire evidence on record has passed a well-reasoned judgment, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. He further contended that, primarily the complainant failed to place material evidence to establish that accused No.1 was a Reporter of the said newspaper and the imputation made by him against the accused. According to the learned counsel, PW1 to PW4-the material witnesses have categorically admitted in their cross- examination that on suspicion, they filed complaint against accused No.1 that he was a Reporter of the said newspaper in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7437 CRL.A No. 100025 of 2017 which the imputation made. Learned counsel also contended that, in addition to filing the instant private complaint, the complainant’s brother also filed a private complaint against these accused No.1 and 2, which came to be withdrawn by him for the reasons best known to him. In such circumstance, it could be gathered that private complaint was filed with an ulterior motive and due to business rivalry with the accused. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, so also on perusal of the evidence and the documents placed before me, the sole point that would arise for my consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the Trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 read with Section 34 of IPC by dismissing the private complaint?” 10. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is appropriate to discuss the provision as stipulated in Explanation-IV to Section 499 of IPC, which reads as under: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7437 CRL.A No. 100025 of 2017 “Section 499 of IPC : Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person. Explanations: (1) xxxxx (2) xxxxx (3) xxxxx (4) No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7437 CRL.A No. 100025 of 2017 11. On plain reading of the above provision, to attract offence of defamation, there must be a public imputation intending to harm reputation of a person, directly or indirectly, who felt defamed. The person involved in such imputation must prove that on account of such defamatory publication, his moral or intellectual character is lowered in others estimation and the duty is casted on the complainant to prove the said aspect. In the instant case, though the complainant has examined himself as PW1 and examined three other witnesses i.e. PW2 to PW4 on his behalf, none of these witnesses have stated that after reading the imputation, the image of complainant lowered in their estimation. 12. Be that as it may, coming to the evidence of PW1, at the outset, he failed to place sufficient material to prove that the accused No.1 was the reporter of alleged defamatory article published in ‘Arjuna Patrike’ newspaper. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that, Ex.P7 is the subsequent newspaper published in the month of October-2007 wherein it reveals that accused No.1 was a reporter in the said newspaper and subsequently, he left the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7437 CRL.A No. 100025 of 2017 said assignment, but Ex.P7 is published in the month of October, 2007 i.e., after lapse of several months from the date of imputation. In such circumstances, it could not be gathered that the accused No.1 was the reporter of the article in the said newspaper. Nevertheless, on perusal of the cross-examination of PW1, it reveals that his brother had also filed a private complaint against the accused for the same offence. Subsequently, he withdrew the said complaint. It is also elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 that, there is a business rivalry between the complainant and the accused. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 13. This being the appeal against acquittal, the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that the Appellate Court shall not interfere with the acquittal judgments if the view taken by the Trial Court is a plausible view. In the instant case, the view taken by the Magistrate is a plausible view and I find no good grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7437 CRL.A No. 100025 of 2017 In that view of the matter, I answer the point raised above in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE JTR, YAN CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 2