IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.429 of 2007 DATE:18.08.2010 Between: Kum.N.Vimala …… Appellant And: R.Jayachandra Naidu and others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.429 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the complainant against reversing judgment dated 09.10.2006 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur in Crl.A.No.24 of 2006 acquitting A-1 and A-2 for offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.C. 2) The appellant/complainant has been working as staff nurse in Government Area Hospital, Guntakal. A-1 is father-in-law and A-2 is wife of Poola Venkata Ramana. A-2 gave Ex.P-1 report to the police against her husband and the appellant alleging that during her temporary absence due to pregnancy, her husband developed illegal intimacy with the appellant since four months and obtained a house on rent near their house and was leading family live with the appellant. The police registered the said report as case in Crime No.72/2000 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C of II Town Police Station, Guntakal against A-2’s husband, appellant and others. Subsequently, after investigation, the police deleted name of the appellant from Crime No.72/2000. A-1 gave a representation to the higher authorities of the appellant alleging the same ground and for transferring the appellant from Guntakal. On the said representation of A-1, the appellant was transferred from Guntakal as per Ex.P-2 proceedings dated 09.04.2001. It is further contended that the appellant lost an alliance for her marriage because of the false and defamatory imputations made by A-1 and A-2. The Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for Excise cases tried the private complaint of the appellant as C.C. No.108 of 2005 and passed judgment dated 28.02.2006 finding A-1 and A-2 guilty of offence under Section 500 I.P.C and convicting A-1 and A-2 and sentencing A-1 to simple imprisonment for seven days and fine of Rs.1,000/- and releasing A-2 under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1954. On appeal, the lower appellate Court reversed finding of guilt passed by the trial Court on the ground that the allegations or the imputations are saved by exception No.9 to Section 499 I.P.C. 3) The appellant’s counsel contended that exception No.9 to Section 499 I.P.C has no application herein. As per exception No.9, it would not be defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided the imputation was made in good faith for the protection of interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good. In the case on hand, there is no dispute about A-1 and A-2 making imputations on the character of the appellant alleging illicit intimacy with A-2’s husband. The said imputations were made by A-2 in her own interest of preserving her family life with her husband; and the said imputations were made by A-1 who is father of A-2, in order to preserve family life of his daughter A-2 with her husband. Except the said intention, A-1 and A-2 had no other bad intention against the appellant. In their zeal to protect A-2’s family life, such imputations were made against the appellant, believing the information furnished to them in enquiry was correct. It is only a out of good faith A-1 and A-2 made the said imputations. 4) I do not find any reason to come to a different conclusion from that of the lower appellate Court. Finding of acquittal recorded by the lower appellate Court does not suffer from any infirmity. 5) In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 18, 2010 KSH