Ndm 1 appln.2201.09 w 2202 w 2203.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2201 OF 2009 Shri. Jocky F. Godad. ... APPLICANT Vs. Shri. Narendra S. Shinde and anr. ... RESPONDENTS -------------- Mr. R.R. Salvi, Advocate for Applicant. Ms. S.V. Gajare, APP. A.S. Gaikwad and Savita A.Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent No.1. -------------- ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2202 OF 2009 Shri Jocky F. Godad. ... APPLICANT Vs. Shri Ramesh R. Patil and anr. ... RESPONDENTS -------------- Mr.R.R. Salvi, Advocate for Applicant. A.S. Gaikwad and Savita A.Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. Y.S. Shinde, APP. -------------- Ndm 2 appln.2201.09 w 2202 w 2203.sxw AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2203 OF 2009 Shri. Jocky F. Godad. ... APPLICANT Vs. Shri. Suryakant S. Shinde and anr. ... RESPONDENTS -------------- Mr.R.R. Salvi, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Y.S. Shinde, APP. Mr. Ashish S. Gaikwad and Mrs. Savita S. Gaikwad for Respondent No.1. -------------- CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 9 th September, 2009. P.C. 1 This Revision Application is filed against the judgment and order dated 16.04.2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 34 th Court Vikhroli, Mumbai acquitting the accused of the offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. There are three Revision Applications filed challenging the same order and on the same issue. Hence all are disposed of together. Ndm 3 appln.2201.09 w 2202 w 2203.sxw 2 The Applicant i.e. Original Complainant has filed the complaint for the defamation in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. Accused, a member of the society has sent a letter to the Registrar of the Cooperative Society making number of imputations in respect of the objectionable working of appellant as an advocate. After recording of the evidence, learned Metropolitan Magistrate has acquitted all the three accused from the offence punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code. Hence this Revision Application. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has submitted that the letter was sent to the Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Society, who is not the authority over the advocate Complainant. The Appellant is the lawyer by profession. Secondly, learned counsel has submitted that the Deputy Registrar has found the said charges baseless and thirdly, the allegations were not made in good faith and cannot fall under any of the exceptions of Section 499 of Indian Penal Code. 4 The learned counsel on the point of good faith and the exception Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code relied on the following ruling ; 1. G.B. Soni Vs. The State of Gujarat and another 1970 Ndm 4 appln.2201.09 w 2202 w 2203.sxw Cri. L.J. 2. AIR 1966 Madras 363 Thangavelu Chettiar Vs. Ponnammal. 5 Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents has submitted that the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Housing Society has not given any finding in respect of the imputations made by the Respondents – Members of the Cooperative Housing Society against the Appellant and on the contrary, the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Housing Society has appointed the Administrator since the working of the society was found not satisfactory and as per rules of the Cooperative Societies Act. 6 The allegations made in the letter sent to the Deputy Registrar by the Respondents are in respect of the working of the Applicant as an advocate and his method of dealing with the mattes of the Society. The Respondents have taken objection that the Appellant is not following rules of Cooperative Societies Act and is abusing the knowledge of law. Allegations in the writing were made to the Deputy Registrar of the Society as the Appellant was working as a legal advisor and Secretary of the said Society. Thus, the Appellant was working in dual capacity as the member and legal advisor. These imputations are Ndm 5 appln.2201.09 w 2202 w 2203.sxw infact of the nature of the complaint or the grievance made against the working of their legal advisor, who is also a Secretary. The issue was in respect of the mis-management of the work of the accused in the society and therefore, the letter was written to the Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Society. The Appellant if would not have worked as a legal advisor or would not have been the member or the office bearer of the Society then such letter written to the Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Society would have been a letter without any purpose and to a person who was not concerned. Registrar of the Cooperative Society is the person to whom the members of the Cooperative Society are supposed to approach and place their grievances. Therefore, the matter, which is appearing in the letter is not defamatory or lowering down the image of the Appellant in the public. 7 The learned Trial Judge has dealt with this issue and has rightly held that the Appellant has not proved the fact of circulation or publication of copies of the complaints containing the defamatory statements against him. The order passed by the learned Trial Judge Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai is just and legal and no interference is required. Hence Criminal Revision Applications are dismissed. [ MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J ]