( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1941 OF 2009 Chandrakant Shriram Sharma APPLICANT VERSUS Mr. S.P. Bora and others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.V. Suryawanshi, advocate for the applicant. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 31st July, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The applicant is original complainant. He is ex-militaryman and presently, a practising advocate. The respondents No. 1 to 20 are the Directors/officials of the Pachora Peoples Cooperative Bank, Pachora. The said Bank had filed the private complaint alleging that the applicant – Chandrakant and others committed offence ( 2 ) punishable under section 409, 420 and 467 of the I.P. Code. It was alleged that certain false documents were produced for obtaining the loan. The private complaint case filed by the Bank ended in acquittal. The applicant also filed a private complaint cas bearing summary criminal case No. 780/2003 against the respondents for offences under section 499 read with section 500 and section 34 of the I.P. Code. He asserted that a totally false complaint was instituted against him. Thelearned Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondents of the alleged offence. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant/appellant would submit that there was no good faith of the respondents in making false accusations against the applicant. He referred to “Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab and another” (AIR 1966 S.C. 97). The Apex Court held that whether or not good faith has been proved by an accused person who pleads in his defence the Ninth Exception under section 499 to a charge of defamation under section 500 of the I.P. Code, is a question of ( 3 ) fact. The Apex Court held that element of honesty is not inintroduced in section 52 of the I.P. Code and the term “good faith” as defined in section 52 of the I.P. Code differs from definition envisaged under section 3 (22) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. It has been held that if it is shown that the accused has led evidence to show that he acted in good faith and by the evidence, he will be entitled to claim benefit of Exception 9. At the same time, it may be mentioned that the Apex Court observed : “Absence of personal malice may be a relevant fact in dealing with the accused’s plea of good faith, but its significance or importance cannot be exaggerated. The accused will have to show that he acted with due care and attention, even in the absence of personal malice.” 4. In the present case, the impugned judgement rendered by the learned Magistrate reveals that the version of A.S.I. Mandwade, who was examined by the applicant as CW2 indicated that the dispute was of civil nature. There is no dispute about the fact that the ( 4 ) loan was sought by the complainant and the same was granted by the Cooperative Bank with a view to secure the insecured loan of his wife. The averments in the complaint of the Bank were intended to book the applicant because the documents relating to mortgaged property were found to be imporper and unacceptable. Cross-examination of the applicant revealed that an open plot was granted to him by the Government for construction of house property for his residential purpose. He is a grantee on account of his being an ex- serviceman. He admitted that he had no right to transfer the said plot without permission of the Collector, and yet, without leave of the Collector, he mortgaged the said plot. Thus, defective security was created in favour of the Bank. Under these circumstances, the allegations made by the Bank in the private complaint case could be regarded as made in good faith and that Exceptions 8 and 9 of section 499 of the I.P. Code would cover the case. The defence was probabalized by the respondents. The impugned judgement and order does not show any element of perversity. In any case, this is not an appropriate case to grant ( 5 ) special leave as contemplated in sub-clause (4) of section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 5. In the result, the leave to appeal is refused. The application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIAPLN1941-09