1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH , SHIMLA Cr.Revision No.: 93 of 2004 Along with Cr.Revisions 101, 94 & 96/04 Decided on: August 5 ,2008 1.Cr. Revision No.93 of 2004 Om Parkash Goel vs Mast Ram 2. Cr. Revision No.101 of 2004 Sunil Kaul vs Mast Ram 3. Cr. RevisionNo.94 of 2004 Dayal Singh vs Mast Ram 4. Cr. Revision No. 96 of 2004 Showet Kumar Joshi vs Mast Ram Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ? Yes. For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Burathoki, Advocate. For respondent : Mr. Ajay Dhiman, Advocate, vice Mr. Rakesh Bharti, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. The petitioners herein were charge-sheeted, under section 500 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Complaint No. 45-II/2003 filed by the respondent Mast Ram against them. By this common order, all the above titled petitions are being disposed of together. 2 In brief, the facts giving rise to the present petitions are that a news item appeared in the edition of Amar Ujala daily dated 17th November, 2000 and other in Divya Himachal dated 18th November, 2000 that the employees Union of Himachal Tourism Development Corporation have demanded from the Hon’ble Chief Minister that the employees posted at Dharamshala Complex as Plumber, Driver and Senior Assistant be transferred immediately. The aforesaid employees Union have leveled allegations upon the employees and officer with respect to embezzlement, cheating and tampering with the records. The petitioner Om Parkash Goel, who was General Secretary of the Union, is stated to have submitted a memorandum to the Hon’ble Chief Minister Prem Kumar Dhumal, alleging therein that the Senior Assistant, Plumber and one Driver at Dharamshala Complex were deceiving the Corporation. It has been further alleged that in the Dharamshala Complex, against one post of driver, three persons have been deputed and due to this anti corporation attitude of the employees, the Union has passed a resolution in its meeting of November and had requested the authorities to transfer them. Transfer of the aforesaid persons was cancelled. In the memorandum, the General Secretary alleged that the transfers have been cancelled, at the behest of the Hon’ble Chief Minister and the Union had demanded that the Chief Minister should interfere in the matter. 3 The grievance of the complainant Mast Ram in these complaints was that by publication of the aforesaid two news items, he has been defamed and his image has been lowered in the estimation of the public at large. In the aforesaid two news items, there is no mention of name of the complainant Mast Ram, apart from other persons no allegation has been leveled against him. The learned trial court recorded the pre-charge evidence. Besides examining himself the complainant also produced and examined Shri K.D.Sharma, Area Manager and Smt.Vibha Walia House Keeper of Hotel, Dhauldhar. Both the witnesses have only stated regarding publication of the two news items referred to above. On their statements, the learned trial court charge-sheeted the petitioners, as aforesaid, which has been challenged in these petitions on the ground that the news items did not disclose anything which could be said defamatory and further that there is no prima-facie evidence to connect the petitioners with the publication of the aforesaid news items . I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the record. In the first news item, published in the Amar Ujala, referred to above, neither the name of the respondent is mentioned nor there is any allegation leveled against him. In the second news item i.e. in Divya Himachal, there is a mention of the name of respondent No.1 apart from other persons but no allegation has been leveled against respondent 4 No.1. If both these news items are de-linked from each other, in neither of these can it be said that respondent Mast Ram has been defamed or there is any defamatory material or allegation against him. Not only this, prima-facie there is no evidence that any of the petitioner herein was responsible for publishing the aforesaid news items aforesaid. Neither the complaint on the face of it nor the pre- charge evidence prima-facie disclose the commission of offence against the petitioners. Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid the revision petitions, filed by the petitioners, are allowed and the charges framed against them are quashed and set aside with all the consequences. Accordingly, the petitions stand disposed of. August 5, 2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (D) 5