1 S.B.Criminal Apeal No.353/89 (D.N.Kaushal v. Omprakash & State) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. J U D G M E N T. D. N. KAUSHAL V. 1. OM PRAKASH 2. THE STATE OF RAJ. S. B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.353/89 against the judgment dated 6.7.89. passed by Shri Kamal Dutt, RJS, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, No.1, Bikaner city (Rajasthan) in Criminal Case No.543/81. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: AUGUST 6, 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA Mr. M.K.Garg,, for Appellant (s). Mr. Sandeep Mehta, for Respondent. Mrs. Chandra Lekha, PP, for the State. BY THE COURT : Appellant challenges respondent's acquittal of for the offence of Section 500 IPC vide judgment dated 6.7.89 in Criminal Case No.543/81 before the Court of JM No.1, Bikaner. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents. Appellant complainant posted as Divisional Railway Manager (DRM), Bikaner initiated proceedings by submitting complaint on 4.4.81 against respondent, alleging that he posted as above and (1) accused respondent is a retired Railway employee (CMI), (2) appellant on 3.4.81 at about 11.00 A.M., was working in his office – there came respondent and told him of he must having received his letter tendered at the morning at saloon – appellant denying and stating ignorance, also said that accused is not asked by him to come, (3) appellant also asked respondent that if he has any complaint, he may prefer in writing which shall be inquired into, but accused continuously insisted that he though is called for a meeting and misbehaved using inappropriate language, (4) on 4.4.81, accused 2 S.B.Criminal Apeal No.353/89 (D.N.Kaushal v. Omprakash & State) distributed cyclostyled and signed letter to all complainant's subordinate employees and also to other persons, mentioning in publication that appellant misbehaves with subordinate employees and a coward, (5) publishing and circulating such cyclostyled letter, also handed over one such on 4.4.81 to Shri L.R.Udasi who handed it over to appellant, (6) handed over one letter on 4.4.81 to Office Superintendent Shri Srikishan, (7) above tendered letter, after being read by these persons, forwarded and submitted to complainant . Alleged that intending to defamed and knowing that it will defame appellant, circulated as above. Thus, everyone and many who read it are taking complainant as a lier and coward and a person misbehaving with other – doing such act the respondent defamed appellant. Proceedings under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. taking cognizance, case registered. Respondent made aware of the allegations, claimed trial. For appellant complainant, in addition to him, are examined witnesses Shri L.R.Udasi PW 2 and Shri Srikishan PW 3 – exhibited are the alleged circulated and other documents. Respondent explained that in morning of 3.4.81, he at saloon of complainant, handed over a letter and he was informed to meet complainant at office and so as he went to office of appellant and asked about the letter – appellant denying same also, narrated incident occurred per him and that as appellant became angry, he tendered typed letter Ex.P2 in an envelope in his office and also delivered another copy in enclosed envelope to PW 3. Also stated that he did not intend to defame and correspondence was in public interest. In defence are examined as many as seven witnesses. Learned Magistrate, inferring that (1) publications tendered only to 3 S.B.Criminal Apeal No.353/89 (D.N.Kaushal v. Omprakash & State) two persons working in office and for handing over to appellant, (2) no circulation or handing over to any other, (3) not circulated, (4) letter written in office type language and (5) tendered in official capacity to complainant and as not circulated in any other manner, acquitted respondent. Learned counsel appearing for complainant argued that (1) despite worth believable evidence of PW 2 and PW 3, above inferences are taken – inferences based on surmises, (2) on document itself is written that ten thousand such letters are issued, (3) even the letter given in office read by many persons, (4) appreciation of evidence and conclusions not as per law. Argued that the inferences as to correctness of the imputation and/or not circulation are to be based on evidence preferred by respondent and in absence of any such worthy evidence, the conclusions are wholly erroneous. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that (1) examining the allegations and evidence in detail, learned Magistrate arrived at conclusion that letter delivered to only two persons, who working in the office of appellant and the letters were meant for delivering to appellant which, in no way, can be deemed to be circulation or publishing. Argued that letter even if having some allegations is written to appellant in his official capacity and for the acts done by him as such. Argued that conclusions based on strong reasoning and evidence, do not warrant any interference. Considered arguments, perused record, evidence and judgment impugned. Complainant PW 1 stating that respondent told him of having called for meet and as he respondent negated became angry and went away using threatening language. Then on 4.4.81, delivered letter to office superintendent Shri Srikishan, asking him and for handing over to DRM the appellant – also handed over a copy of the same to executive 4 S.B.Criminal Apeal No.353/89 (D.N.Kaushal v. Omprakash & State) assistant Shri L.R.Udasi who handed over to him and copies of such letter were also sent to higher authorities. According to appellant, communication intended to defame him and he was defamed even in consideration and thinking of subordinate employees and others. In cross-examination, accepts that a FIR was registered against him with GRP police station on 24.11.81 and Shri Udasi did hand over envelope to him. Shri L.R.Udasi PW 2 clearly says that letter so given by respondent to him for handing over to complainant was by him given to appellant – also speaks that on reading it, he developed bitter feeling about complainant. Shri Srikishan PW 3 speaks that he reading letter Ex.1, handed over the same to complainant and now he does not remember as to what impressions he developed after reading Ex.P1. Both these witnesses do not speak of any other circulation by respondent. Learned Magistrate has also assigned other reasons of inferring and in the opinion of this Court, the inference of non-circulation/publication is based on sound reasons. Further, appellant was working while posted as DRM and respondent as a retired Railway employee. The letter delivered seems to be in somewhat official language as is accepted by PW 3 – appellant was lawful authority for the matters connected to Railway and working in the capacity of public officer so other relevant provisions also are attracted. Considering evidence and totality of circumstances, no inference can be that in any way appellant was defamed, nor evidence is of circulation or publication of the imputations, therefore, the judgment does not call for any interference. The appeal being without force is to be rejected. Accordingly the appeal is rejected. (C.M. TOTLA),J.