IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 CRL.A.No. 672 of 2008 ------------------------------------ ST.1484/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, NILAMBUR .................... APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT: T.K.SAFAR, S/O T.K.ABOOBACKER, THUPPINIKKADAN HOUSE, NILAMBUR P.O., RESIDING NEAR JANATHAPADI. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE: 1. C.K.GOPALAN, S/O VALIYA KORAN (LATE) CHEMBRAKKADAN HOUSE, KARAPURAM P.O., KALKULAM. 2. SASI BABU.C.K. DO. DO. 3. SASIKUMAR, DO. DO. 4. ABDULLA K.P., S/O. UNEEN K.P. KANNADI LABAL HOUSE, DO. DO. 5. AYSHA, W/O ABDULLA K.P. KANNADIPARAMBAN HOUSE, DO. DO. 6. VELAYUDHAN.C.K., S/O VALIYA KORAN CHEMBRAKKADAN HOUSE, DO. DO. 7. KAMALAM, W/O VELAYUDHAN.CK., DO. DO. 8. SEETHA, D/O CHERIYA KORAN, DO. DO. 9. DHANIYA, D/O VELAYUDHAN.C.K. DO. DO. 10. SANDHIYA, D/O VELAYUDHAN.CK. DO. DO. 11. MUNDI, S/O VALIYA KORAN (LATE), DO. DO. 12. SHAILAJA.CK., D/O VALIYA KORAN (LATE) DO. DO. 13. CHANDRAN C.K., S/O CHERIYA KORAN, DO. DO. 14. CHERIYA KORAN, DO. DO. 15. KALI, W/O CHERIYA KORAN, DO. DO. 16. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PP SRI.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- Crl.A.No. 672 of 2008 --------------------------- JUDGMENT Heard the counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal is filed by the complainant in S.T.No.1484/06 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nilambur, assailing the order passed by the learned Magistrate, acquitting respondents 1 to 15 of offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code vide Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. 3. The appellant filed complaint in the court below alleging, inter alia, that he is a member of a reputed family and Trustee of a Charitable Trust by name 'Fazal Omar'; that his father was holding a licence to keep a fire arm; that he filed an application before the District Collector for transfer of the said licence in his favour; that respondents 1 to 15 thereupon filed a false complaint against him before the District Collector and the Divisional Forest Officer (North Division), CRA 672/08 2 Nilambur making allegations against the appellant; that the appellant is a drunkard and a person habitually engaged in hunting; that the District Collector and the Divisional Forest Officer (North Division) conducted enquiry on the allegations and Forest Officials made local enquiry on the complaint and thus, the false allegations levelled in the petition filed by respondents 1 to 15 spread in the locality and that has defamed the appellant and thus, they committed offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It is seen from the impugned order that the complaint was originally filed against eighteen persons, including respondents 1 to 15, but, later, the appellant filed an application to strike off the names of Accused Nos.11 to 13 in the complaint on the ground that they are juveniles and the case proceeded only as against respondents 1 to 15. 5. On appearance of respondents 1 to 15 in the court below pursuant to issuance of summons, they were served with copies of all relevant records in CRA 672/08 3 the case and were questioned by the learned Magistrate, reading over the particulars of the offence. Thereupon, all the respondents pleaded not guilty and consequently, a trial of the case was conducted by the court below. 6. On the side of the appellant, he gave evidence as PW1, got examined a witness also as PW2 and got marked in evidence Exhibits P1 to P5. On the complainant closing his evidence, the respondents/accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereupon, they generally denied all incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them and maintained that they are innocent. According to them, they were being falsely implicated in the case. However, they did not adduce any evidence in defence. 7. The court below considered the case in the light of the evidence adduced as aforesaid, found respondents 1 to 15 not guilty of offence punishable under Section 500 IPC and consequently, acquitted them under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Hence CRA 672/08 4 this appeal by the aggrieved appellant/complainant. 8. It is contended before me by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant did not produce copy of the objection filed by respondents 1 to 15 before the District Collector, the allegations wherein are alleged to constitute an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC and that an opportunity be granted to the appellant to produce the said objection filed by respondents 1 to 15 before the District Collector. However, he has no case that on the evidence adduced in the case, a conviction could be entered into or sustained, except on the court believing PW2 that he heard the officials reading out the allegations in the complaint in public as also the testimony of the appellant as PW1, although interested. 9. The contentions are not having any force at all. Any person interested can file an objection to grant of licence to an applicant under the Arms Act and the objection so filed before the authority concerned, even if, they are unable to establish CRA 672/08 5 the truth thereof, it will not constitute an offence of defamation. Further, the allegation sought to be established through PW2 that the Forest Officials read the objection in public is too much to be believed, as an enquiry that is being conducted in respect of the objection filed to grant of licence under the Arms Act is not by reading out the objection in public, but making discreet enquiries by the officers concerned. Further, the allegation of the appellant that he was defamed was based on the allegations alleged to have been made in the objection filed by respondents 1 to 15 and three other juveniles before the District Collector. If at all the appellant had got a case that the allegations made therein were not actually by way of objection to grant of licence under the Arms Act, but was intended to defame him, he should have caused the said objection to be got down before the trial court to establish that the intention of respondents 1 to 15 was malafide. No attempt at CRA 672/08 6 all was made by the appellant to cause production of the objection so filed before the District Collector and the Divisional Forest Officer (North Division), objecting to grant of licence to him under the Arms Act. Thus, the appellant has miserably failed to establish his case of his having been defamed by respondents 1 to 15. In the circumstances, the learned Magistrate was fully justified in acquitting respondents 1 to 15 of the offence under Section 500 IPC vide Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. There is no merit at all in this appeal and this appeal deserves only to be dismissed. In the result, I dismiss this appeal in limine. 7th April, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv