1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 308 of 2001 (Old No. 1465 of 1998) Prakash Chandra Pant Son of Late Sri Badri Datt Pant Almora Times, Pandey Khola (Talli Bari), Almora …………… Revisionist Versus 1. State of U.P State of Uttarakhand 2. Smt. Anandi Devi (Now retired Clerk) R/O Karnakakhola Almora, District Almora ………….. Opposite parties Shri Rajendra Kotiyal, Advocate, present for the revisionist Smt. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A, present for the State Shri K.K.Tewari Advocate present for respondent Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision is directed against judgment and order dated 25.08.1998, passed by Sessions Judge, Almora, in criminal appeal No. 2 of 1995, whereby said court has dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the judgment and order dated 18.05.1995, passed by Munsif/Judicial Magistrate, Almora, in criminal case no. 385 of 1993. The trial court had convicted the revisionist under section 500 I.P.C and 2 sentenced him the simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 50. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. (3) Prosecution story in brief is that a criminal complaint was filed by respondent no.2 Anandi Devi Pandey on 26.09.1988, against the revisionist Prakash Chandra Pant for his trial in respect of offence punishable under section 500 I.P.C. Accused/revisionist is an editor of Newspaper ‘Almora Times’. The complainant (present respondent) was clerk in District Development Office. She pleaded that two news reports were published in paper (Almora Times) with the titles “ EK RAHESYA JAANE SABHI” and “ HEY ISHWAR TUNE TO DEKHA HOGA”. The two news items related to the fact that how the minor female inmates of the observation home are kept highlighting that one of the inmate Maya got pregnant. Among the persons which the newspaper reported responsible included the complainant Anandi Devi whose photograph was also published in the group with the others. The accused/revisionist was editor of said paper. The complainant pleaded that by said reports her prestige lowered down in the estimation of the people who knew her in the society. It appears that the trial court after recording statement of the complainant under section 200 of Cr.P.C and that of the witnesses under section 202 of 3 Cr.P.C, summoned the accused/revisionist to face the trial, in respect of offence punishable under section 500I.P.C. The accused denied the charge. (4) After recording the evidence and hering the parties, the trial court held the accused guilty of charge of offence punishable under section 500 I.P.C and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 50. In default of payment of fine the convict was directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one week. Aggrieved by said order dated, 18.05.1995, passed by Munsif/Judicial Magistrate, Almora, in criminal case no. 385 of 1993, the convict preferred criminal appeal no. 2 of 1995, before the Sessions Judge, Almora. Said court after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.08.1198. Hence this revision was filedny the convict before Allahabad High Court. It appears that the revision was admitted their on 10.09.1998. The revision is transferred to this court under section 35 of U.P Reorganization Act 2000 (central Act 29 of 2000), for its disposal. (5) Learned counsel for the revisionist drew attention of this court to First Exception to section 499 of I.P.C. Section 499 defines defamation. First Exception to said section reads as under. 4 First Exception--Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published.-- It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good, is a question of fact. (6) Also, attention of this drawn Second Exception to section 500I.P.C which reads as under “ Second Exception-- public conduct of public servants:- it is not defamation to express in a good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of public servant in the discharge of the public his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further”. (7) Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisionist was a journalist of the editor newspaper ‘Almora Times’ in which the newsitems and the photograph were published. Learned counsel for the revisionist referred report of the Executive Magistrate dated 21.03.1988 written to the District Magistrate, Almora, in which he gave his conclusion in 44 pages after examining as many as 25 witnesses including the complainant Anandi Pandey. This report is dated prior to the filing of the criminal complaint. In this report the Magistrate has found that one Chandra Dutt Pandey who 5 used to work in the house of the complainant was responsible for pregnancy with the female inmate of the observation home. Name of Chandra Dutt Pandey was taken by the victim herself before the Magistrate. It has also come on the report that one R.P.Singh Fonia who was District Social Welfare Officer used to live in the house of the complainant Anandi Devi who used to get Chandra Dutt Pandey engaged as Chowkidaar in the observation home after getting sent one after another employee of the observation home so that Chandra Dutt Pandey may be engaged on leave vacancy in their place. The Magistrate in the inquiry has discussed the conduct of Superintendent of the Nursing Home, District Social Welfare (R.K.Fonia), nurse who was posted in the observation home and also the conduct of Anandi Devi in the entire episode. The newspaper reports in question show that these names have figured in the newspaper. As such it could not be said that the editor (accused/revisionist) has named Anandi Devi alone to defame her. It appears that the editor while reporting has taken the facts as true and published bonafide. As such the reporting is covered under Exception one of the section 499 of I.P.C. (8) It appears that courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence adduced in defence. It has come on the record that DW3 Prafulla Chandra Pant, a stenographer of Collectorate, Almora, has placed the 6 record of Magistrate enquiry before the court. The courts below have not cared into see that the allegation in the newspaper report and in the finding in the Magistrate enquiry which are similar as such it can not be said that the accused/revisionist has published the news item to defame the complainant. If the report has been published after taking due caution and on the basis of the material it can not be said that he has committed offence of defamation. (9) Learned counsel for respondent no.2/complainant pleaded that Chandra Dutt Pandey who is said to be the man of Anandi Devi (complainant) and responsible for the pregnancy of the female inmate of the observation home, has been acquitted by the court of Sessions from the charge of offence punishable under section 376 I.P.C. But that by itself cannot be ground to convict the accused/revisionist who reported the matter much before the acquittal of Chandra Dutt Pandey. (10) For the reasons as discussed above, this court of is of the view that the courts below have erred in law in appreciating the evidence and in convicting the revisionist on charge of offence punishable under section 500 I.P.C . (11) Therefore, the revision is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 18.05.1995, passed by Munsif/Judicial Magistrate, Almora in criminal case no. 7 385 of 1993, and the judgment and order dated 25.08.1998, passed by Sessions Judge, Almora, in criminal appeal no. 2 of 1995 are set aside. The accused/revisionist is acquitted of the charge of offence punishable under section 500I.P.C. Lower court record be sent back. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.28.04.2010 NP