Criminal Revision No.653 of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.653 of 2004 Date of Decision: May 04, 2009 Som Nath Kapoor ...........Petitioner Versus Pardeep Kasni and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.A.S.Virk,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.Sidharath Sarup, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr.K.S.Dhaliwal,Advocate for respondent No.2 ** Sabina, J. Petitioner was convicted under Sections 500 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) vide judgment dated 8.10.1998 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kurukshetra. Vide order dated 9.10.1998, petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 500 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 502 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal. Vide judgment dated 4.3.2004, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, while upholding the conviction and sentence of the petitioner modified the sentence from rigorous imprisonment to simple imprisonment. Hence, the Criminal Revision No.653 of 2004 2 present revision petition. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “ The brief facts of case are:Som Nath Kapoor, printed and published a news item captioned, “D.D.P.O. Shri Pardeep Kasni Ne Mangi Rishwat” in Hindi fortnightly STHANU TIMES (issue No. 19 and 20) on 3.8.1992 to the effect that complainant Pardeep Kasni had demanded a sum of Rs.25,000/- from Phool Chand (respondent No.3) as illegal gratification for leasing out the Panchayat land. Phool Chand got an affidavit executed and attested in this regard and sent the copies of affidavit to the publishers of newspaper and other higher officers of the department. It is further alleged that on 3.9.1992 a similar news item was published in the fortnightly STHANU TIMES (issue No.20 and 21) to the effect that Smt.Neelam Kasni, wife of complainant Pardeep Kasni, exercising her powers of Administrator of Municipal Committee, Thanear, got refuse and rubbish thrown in front of the premises of STHANU TIMES, owned and possessed by editor of STHANU TIMES, at the instigation of complainant. It was also alleged that the complainant had dealing with a contractor of bad repute, who used to supply girls to the higher officers and had embezzled lakhs of rupees of the Municipal Committee. The complainant was also seen in the company of a woman kept in a separate house. The contractor is alleged to have been seen roaming with higher officers and exploiting their position. The two issues Criminal Revision No.653 of 2004 3 containing imputation against the complainant were distributed and sold to the public at large and to the persons known to the complainant in the area, Government offices in the State and market with an intention and knowledge to harm the reputation of the complainant and his wife. The imputation, it is alleged, have lowered down his intellectual character in the estimation of others, particularly the officers colleagues, friends and relations including Om Singh, resident of House No.1386/13 Kurukshetra, Shr.Mahaveer Parshad Dahiya, Housing Board Colony, Kurukshetra Makan Lal son of Sat Pal, Chhota Bazar, Thanesar and Sh.Pardeep Kumar Kamboj, Advocate, Kurukshetra and others. It was also alleged that Som Nath Kapoor (respondent No.1) was annoyed with the complainant because complainant did not issue any advertisement for publication in the fortnightly STHANU TIMES and Phool Chand (respondent No.3) was annoyed when the complainant detected a case of fraud and embezzlement of money while working as Social Education and Panchayat Officer,Pehowa. The complainant lodged a complaint to summon and punish the respondents according to law for publishing distributing derogatory and defamatory material under Section 499, 500,501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code.” Learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 500, 502 IPC. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is not the previous convict and is facing the criminal proceedings since 1992. Now, the newspaper which was being run by the petitioner is Criminal Revision No.653 of 2004 4 no longer being distributed for the last 13-14 years. Learned counsel has further submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the petitioner may be reduced to already undergone by him as he has already undergone about five weeks of actual sentence out of six months of simple imprisonment. Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the petitioner. Hence, the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 500, 502 IPC is maintained and the sentence qua the imprisonment of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone by him. Petition stands disposed of. (Sabina) Judge May 04, 2009 arya