1 APPLN 4047 OF 2010 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4047 OF 2010. Bhimraj Ankush Arekar, .. Applicant -versus The State of Maharashtra and ors .. Respondents. Mr. V.B. Tapkir, for the Applicant. Mr. Y. M. Nakhawa, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 11th January, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application for leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khadaki, Pune, whereby learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent nos 2 to 6 of the offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant was serving as Store Keeper in the Queen Mary Technical Institute, a Institute which is run for rehabilitation of disabled soldiers. Respondent Nos 2 and 3 were office bearers of the said Institute. Respondent No.4 was the Principal of the institute. It was alleged that an anonymous letter received by the respondent Nos 2 and 3 which was read by respondent No.3 in a meeting held on 21th June, 2006. The said letter contained the allegations that the applicant used to demand 2 APPLN 4047 OF 2010 bribes for allotment of quarters. Respondent No.3 is alleged to have read that letter and invited the participants to state if anybody has grievance against applicant. Respondent Nos 5 and 6 are stated to have aired their grievance about the conduct of the applicant in demanding bribe for allotment of quarters. According to applicant this amounts to defamation. In order to prove his case, the applicant examined as many as six witnesses. After appreciation of evidence learned trial Magistrate held that the word of the applicant was not believable, apart from the fact that the respondent Nos 2 to 4 were serving in Armed Forces and holding their position in the Institute as retired Officers and by virtue of Armed Forces Rules, without sanction to prosecute them, the prosecution could not proceed against them. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since respondent Nos 2 to 4 have been arrayed as accused not in their capacity as members of Armed Forces, but as constituents of a trust. There is no question of their being public servant as defined in the Penal Code. Consequently no sanction to prosecute them was necessary. It is not necessary to consider this aspect, since even on merits, learned trial Magistrate has rightly come to the conclusion that the charge of defamation is not proved. First there are discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as to whether respondent No.3 Shrikant Yeri, in fact made any 3 APPLN 4047 OF 2010 allegations against applicant. It is stated that the respondent No.3 read out anonymous letter which has been received by him and invited participants to air grievances if any in the conference. This act does not amount to defamation as respondent Nos 5 and 6 have stated that the applicant had in fact demanded or received more money from them. Unless the applicant proves that there was no such attempt or acceptance of higher amount from respondent Nos 5 and 6, he cannot claim that the statement made by the respondent Nos 5 and 6 and the letter which was read over by respondent No.3 in conference were defamatory. In view of this it cannot be said that learned Magistrate erred in concluding that the applicant failed to prove charge of offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. No case for interference is made out. Leave refused. Revision dismissed. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)