HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Crl.A. No. 87 of 2006 DATED: 02.07.2010 Between: State of A .P. rep. by The Public Prosecutor .. Appellant And K. Laxminarayana .. Respondent JUDGMENT:- The State has preferred this Criminal Appeal against the judgment dated 17.09.2004 delivered in C.C. No.287 of 2002 whereby the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC and released on admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The accused was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 506 and 507 IPC, and accordingly, he was acquitted. Challenging the same, the State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. The case of the prosecution in brief as per the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police is that the accused, who was working as P.A. to D.G.M. (Admn.) Telephones in Suryalok Complex, made false and defamatory statements about one A. Venkatarao that Venkatarao, who was his colleague, was having links with one Smt.Sarada Devi, who was also working in the same Department, and used to make gestures insulting the modesty of Sarada Devi. The accused also addressed certain letters written by him containing defamatory statements. Therefore, he was charged with the offence punishable under Sections 506, 507, and 509 IPC. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, it examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P23. Nobody was examined nor was marked any document on behalf of the defence. The trial Court, after considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC, and released him on admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. However, the trial Court found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 506 and 507 IPC and accordingly acquitted him. Challenging the same, the State preferred the present Criminal Appeal. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, the learned counsel for the respondent-accused and perused the material placed on record. PW2 – the victim, deposed that she has been working as P.A. to Deputy General Manager (Admn.), B.S.N.L., Hyderabad since 1994 and PW1 – A. Venkatarao, who is her relative, is also an employee in the same office. The accused, who also works in the same office, sits beside her seat. She further deposed that in April 2000, she was informed by the wife of PW1 that she received some phone calls from some unknown persons abusing PW2 in filthy language and the telephone number as displayed in their caller I.D. is 7036161, and on verification by PW2, it was found that the number belongs to the accused. PW1 deposed in similar lines as deposed by PW2. He further deposed that his wife told him that some unknown persons used to talk very badly against PW2 with regard to her character alleging that she had illicit intimacy with PW1. PW3, the wife of PW1 deposed that on 16.04.2000, she received telephone call from unknown person, who stated that her husband is not a good person and that she should be careful with him as he has illicit intimacy with PW2 and abused PWs.1 and 2 in filthy language. She further deposed that such call was received from telephone No.7036161, which was identified through her caller I.D. as belonging to the accused. PW5 – D.G.M. (Admn.) deposed that PWs.1, 2 and the accused were working in his office and PW1 informed him about the abusive calls received at his residence from the telephone of the accused, whereupon, he called the accused and PW1 and when he questioned the accused about his defamatory statements, he sought for excuses in the presence of PW1. PW4, the retired Director of Finger Prints Bureau deposed that he examined certain documents particularly Ex.P2 – envelop and gave his report for the purpose of guidelines and not for production of evidence in any Court of law. PW7 – Scientific Assistant in A.P.F.S.L., Hyderabad deposed that he examined Ex.P1 - letter containing the disputed handwritings of the accused and Ex.P6 - specimen signatures of the accused, and opined that on comparison, the handwritings of the accused are found to have been disputed. From a careful analysis of the evidence and other material placed on record, it is obvious that the conduct of the accused in using abusive and defamatory language besides making insulting remarks against the character of PWs.1 and 2 constitute the offence of insulting modesty of PW2 which attracts the ingredients of penal provision under Section 509 IPC. The evidence of PW2 is fortified by the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 5. Further, it appears that the specimen signatures of the accused were not taken before the Court of law for the purpose of comparison by PW7, who is the Finger Print Expert, but they were taken during the course of investigation. No doubt, whether the specimen signatures of the accused taken for the comparison are admitted or rejected, are not valid in law inasmuch as they are not taken before the Court of law, as such, the handwriting expert of the F.S.L has got no evidentiary value. Moreover, it is to be noticed from the evidence on record that even though the accused criminally intimidated PW2 – the victim, by anonymous communication over his telephone, he did not take any precaution to conceal his name. As is evident from the evidence of PW5, the accused excused himself when he was questioned by PW5 about his defamatory remarks made to insult the modesty of PW2. Therefore, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly reveals that the ingredients of the alleged offence punishable under Sections 506 and 507 IPC are not at all attracted. Hence, the trial Court, in my considered opinion, is justified in acquitting the accused of the offence punishable under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. For the foregoing reasons, this revisional Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference from this Court. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case fails, and the same is accordingly dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Insofar as the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC is concerned, it seems that the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate applied the provisions under Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act by taking a lenient view having regard to the fact that the accused officer is a responsible employee, and that earlier he has no criminal record and also other facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, I am of the view that the finding of the learned Magistrate in releasing the accused on admonition by applying the provisions contemplated under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, by taking a lenient view is justifiable. ________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J. 2nd July, 2010 bcj