( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.64 of 2008. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.64 of 2008. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No.64 of 2008. Karmu Ramchand Khetwani. ..Applicant. Vs. Dharmendra Y. Bharadwaj and Ors. ..Respondents. Applicant in person. Mr H. E. Palwe, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. Mr S. S. Pednekar, A.P.P. for State/Respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V.C. DAGA, J. DATED : 23RD JUNE, 2008. DATED : 23RD JUNE, 2008. DATED : 23RD JUNE, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard Mr Khetwani, applicant in person and Mr Palwe, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Mr Pednekar, A.P.P. for the State. Perused the petition. 2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.8.2007 passed in Criminal Revision Stamp No. 2461 of 2007 by the ( 2 ) learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, whereby the complaint is dismissed against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are practising Advocates with direction to try Accused No.1 in accordance with the law subject to the decision of any other revision or petition filed by him challenging issuance of process. THE FACTUAL MATRIX: THE FACTUAL MATRIX: THE FACTUAL MATRIX: ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ 3. The factual matrix reveals that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are Advocates practising at Nashik. They had issued one public notice under the instructions of their client which appeared in a newspaper which, according to the present applicant, contains defamatory material. As such, he filed a complaint in the Court of learned Metropolitan Railway Mobile Court, Andheri, Mumbai. The learned Magistrate issued process against the original Accused No.2 and 3 (present Respondent Nos.1 and 2 practising Lawyers). 4. The present Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 ( 3 ) challenged the order of issuance of process by filing Revision Application in the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay which was allowed by an order dated 9.8.2007 as indicated in the opening part of this order. CONSIDERATION: CONSIDERATION: CONSIDERATION: -------------- -------------- -------------- 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant has invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court. He was heard in person. He took me through a bunch of papers filed on record together with the written submissions filed. I was also taken through the impugned order in the present revision. The learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order has relied on several authorities. One of such authorities is Filomeno Pereira v. Joao Lourenco Fernandes, Filomeno Pereira v. Joao Lourenco Fernandes, Filomeno Pereira v. Joao Lourenco Fernandes, 1981 Cri.L.J. 117, 1981 Cri.L.J. 117, 1981 Cri.L.J. 117, wherein it is held that affidavit drafted by Advocate for his client under latter’s instructions would not bring the Advocate into clutches of Section 499 even though ( 4 ) affidavit may contain defamatory statement. Advocate is bound to act on the client’s instructions except under exceptional circumstances. 6. In Sanatan Sanstha vs. state of Goa, Sanatan Sanstha vs. state of Goa, Sanatan Sanstha vs. state of Goa, 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1827, 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1827, 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1827, this Court ruled that unless the complainant had spelt out acts from which abetment would be gathered, no process could have been issued against Advocate. Similarly, in N. Jothi V. Rajamani and Anr, N. Jothi V. Rajamani and Anr, N. Jothi V. Rajamani and Anr, 1996 (1) Crimes 586, 1996 (1) Crimes 586, 1996 (1) Crimes 586, the Madras High Court explained the law that if no personal animosity against the complainant on behalf of Advocate is established there is presumption that Advocate acted in good faith and process issued against him means abuse of process of court. Following the very same view, and in agreement thereof, I find no fault with the view taken by the Court below. The view taken is a reasonable and possible view. 7. This Court not being a Court of appeal is not expected to reappreciate the evidence. At this juncture, it is also necessary to note the ( 5 ) length and breadth of the revisional jurisdiction of the Court which is made clear in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of State of State of Rajasthan vs. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC Rajasthan vs. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC Rajasthan vs. Gurucharandas Chaddha, AIR 1979 SC 1895. 1895. 1895. In the above view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned order. 8. The revision application is dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. JUDGE. JUDGE. JUDGE.