HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Appeal no. 1959 of 2001 (Old no. 501 of 1993) Smt. Lata Shukla W/o Sri M.N. Shukla, Resident of 6, Mohan Niwas, Nainital. ------- Complainant/appellant. Dheerendra Sah, Naini Yatra, Versus Resident of 18-Bara Bazar, Mallital, At present 43, Oak Park, Barracks, Mallital, Nainital. ------- Accused/Respondent Ms. Krishi Shukla, holding brief of Sri Dinesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the complainant/appellant, Sri Rahul Consul, holding brief of Sri Sudhanshu Dhulia, learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent. Dated: June 9, 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This appeal preferred u/s 378 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.12.1987 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital in Criminal Case no. 675 of 1985 Smt. Lata Shukla vs. Dhreendra Sah whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondent Dheerendra Sah for the offence punishable u/s 500 I.P.C. 2. I have heard Ms. Krishi Shukla, holding brief of Sri Dinesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the complainant/ appellant and Sri Rahul Consul, holding brief of Sri Sudhanshu Dhulia, learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent. 3. In brief, the prosecution case is this that the complainant/ appellant Smt. Lata Shukla resides at Mallital, Nainital and her husband was in the Govt. Service posted at Nainital. The complainant is a respected lady and she keeps reputation in the society. She remained General Secretary of the Congress-I at Nainital Branch and is a social worker. Besides it she had been 2 working in different posts of Congress-I. The respondent/ accused Dheerendra Sah was publishing Newspaper in the name of “NAINIYATRA”. It is further averted that due to the animosity at the first page of 22/23rd addition of the newspaper he published news on 17.01.1984 with the headings “vuqlwfpr tu tkfr xcu dkWM 'kh"kZd ls Jherh yrk 'kqDyk dks fdldk lgkjk” and this news was circulated in the whole city of Nainital and the Station House Officer, Mallital had reiterated to take coercive action against her. News was also published against the complainant/ appellant for misappropriation of money and to make alterations and for having good relations with the Ministers. It is further stated that due to these news, the complainant/ appellant was defamed in the society. The accused/ respondent also published a news at page no.3 in 28th addition dated 05.03.1984 with the headings that “vuqlwfpr tu tkfr fuxe ds migkj fdldks ckWVs” and by publishing this news in the Newspaper, the respondent/accused had defamed the complainant/ appellant in the society. It was further averted in the complaint that all the news published in the newspaper against the complainant/appellant were false. The complainant had given notice to the accused/respondent on 08.02.1984, but the accused did not answer the notice. 4. With these averments, the complainant/ appellant filed a complaint case bearing no. 675 of 1985 u/s 500 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.) against the accused/respondent in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital. The learned Trial Court recorded statement of the complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and evidence of the complainant’s witness was recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. On the basis of the complaint and evidence on record, the Trial Court found prima- facie case u/s 500 I.P.C. against the accused/ respondent and accordingly the Trial Court summoned the accused/respondent u/s 500 I.P.C. Thereafter evidence of PW-1 Sudharshan Kumar was recorded u/s 244 Cr.P.C. 3 5. Statement of the accused/respondent was recorded by the Trial Court in which the accused/respondent has categorically admitted that he published the news, but the news articles were not defamatory and by publishing the articles the complainant was not defamed at all. There was no character assassination of the complainant/ appellant and she was not defamed in the society. The publication was made in the public interest and it was not with the intention to disturb image of any particular person in the society. 6. From perusal of the record it is illustrated that on 19.04.1985 statement of the accused/respondent was recorded, who denied the allegations made against him, thereafter the case was lingering on before the Trial Court and as many as 26 dates were fixed by the Court for production of remaining complainant’s witnesses, but the complainant did not adduce further evidence before the Trial Court. The Trial Court provided adequate opportunity to the complainant for producing evidence. The case was adjourned many times on behalf the complainant/appellant on one pretext or the other. The Trial Court found that the complainant/appellant failed to prove her case, therefore the Trial Court vide his judgment and order dated 01.12.1987 acquitted the accused/respondent for the offence punishable u/s 500 I.P.C. in absence of any evidence against him on the record. 7. Aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 01.12.1987, the complainant/appellant filed appeal before the High Court of Allahabad which was admitted on 29.03.1993 and after creation of the State of Uttaranchal (now State of Uttarakhand), the appeal was received by transfer to this High Court under Section 35 of the U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000. 8. At the time hearing of the appeal, Ms. Krishi Shukla, Adv. holding brief of Sri Dinesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the 4 appellant made statement at bar that she does not intend to press this appeal. I have also gone through the record of the Trial Court and the relevant papers on the record. There is no evidence against the accused/respondent which would prove charge u/s 500 I.P.C. against him. This court is of the view that while passing of order impugned acquitting the accused/ respondent from the offence punishable u/s 500 I.P.C., the Trial Court has not committed any error of law and order impugned does not warrant interference at this stage. The order impugned is justified and correct as per the evidence available on the record. I do not find any illegality, irregularity, incorrectness or impropriety in the judgment and order dated 01.12.1987 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 11. Let the record of the court below be sent back to the Court concerned. (Dharam Veer, J.) 09.06.2008 NCM: