-, EH lN THE HIGH COURT 0F SIKKIM OF3DEF} SHEET Criminal Revision Petition M. crmlunEN Versus A. MOUI`IK Order with Signature No. 4 of 2004 Petitioner / Appellant ` Pespondent ` ( Office Note as to action (if any} taken on Order I. 16.6.2004 This revision is directed against the order dated 3.4.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, (East) Gangtok in P.C.Case No.05/2004 rejecting the petitioner's complaint filed against one advocate A. Moulik. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he had filed a criminal complaint against one F`anthome in the Court of CJM (E&N) at Gangtok. The advocate, A.Moulik was the counsel for the said Fanthome in the said case. In course of hearing of that case, the concerned advocate while arguing the case instead of reading out paragraph 16 read out paragraph 9 of the judgment of this Court rendered in Civil First Appeal No.1 of 1997 which was not relevant in the case against F`anthome, and by such reading in the Court, injury to his wife as well as to his reputation was caused and thereby the concerned advocate defamed them. The petitioner's further allegation is that the concerned advocate bore ill-will and •personal enmity against him since 1994 and he did not act in good faith in reading out paragraph 16 of the judgment of this Court rendered in the First Appeal. The leaned Magistrate after hearing the petitioner, dismissed the complaint holding that, reading out paragraph 9 of the judgment in a tii= i '+I Ialotjer Dateo'Order Order with Signature Office Note as totaac;:°nn:faflryd)er . - + judicial proceeding between the same parties did ' not amount to defalnation inasmuch as, a lawyer conducting a case on behalf of his client enjoys certain privileges and latitudes and reading out a particular portion of judgment being in the interest of his client, he is protected under ninth exception to Section 499 IPC. 3. I have heard the petitioner who has argued the case in person. 'He submitted that the learned Magistrate Committed illegality in rejecting the complaint bet;ause at the time of considering prima facie case, she should not nave taken into consideration as to what would be the probabl6' defence plea of the accused. In this connection he has referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Seu]ahrain vets:us R. K. Karanjkya - 1981 Crininal Law 3ournal 894, Smt. Nagowwa versus V. SS. E:onjaky£ - AIR 1976 SC 1947, Cha:iruen Lad versus State Of P.ungab - Am 197b SC 1372 and judgment Of Kerafa Hkyh Court in a. Chandrasekhara P€ual i]ersus Karthikegan - AIR 1964 Keraha 277. 4. I have carefully considered the subinissions made by the petitioner. Perusal of the impugned order would show that the learned Magistrate did not `. find a prima facie case qf com`mission of offence of defamation by the advocate because of his reading out paragraph 9 of the judgment of this Court rendered ip the Civil.,.First Appeal No.1 of 1997. The ®*±,`, said judgment wia§ `between the same parties and reading a portion of it in a judicial proceeding by an advocate appearing for a particular party does notamount to defamation. Before a Magistrate •p,, Scrjal No. of Order Order with Signature takes cognizance of an offence, he has to see whether the complaint constitutes an offence. By referring or reading out a portion of judgment without reading another portion as suggested by the petitioner, in a Court proceeding, a; cannot be held t\ that by such act the concerned advocate defamed the petitioner or his wife. A lawyer appearing in a case has his own way of presenting his client's case. He might have considered that particular part of the judgment which he was said to have placed in the Court would be relevant in defending his client's case. The petitioner's submission is that the concerned advocate should have placed in the Court paragraph 16 before placing paragraph 9 of the judgment delivered by this Court in the F`irst Appeal. This can hardly be accepted as a valid proposition. A lawyer has his own choice or way of presenting his client's case in a Court. He cannot be coerced that he should present the case in the manner in which his opponent wants it to be done. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any valid or cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order 6. I may also note that the ratio of judgments referred to by the petitioner has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. 7. In the result, I do not find any merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed. R.Jir[, €hke.fJque_ Office Note as to taackt::no(n`f6:¥!r