1 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2838 of 2009 Sambhaji Kondiram Kadam .. Petitioner -Versus- Kisan Baburao Kadam & Ors. ... Respondents None for Petitioner. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for State. CORAM: SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 17th November, 2011. P.C.:- Called out twice, none present for the petitioner. The Writ Petition is dismissed for default. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J) Mr. Shankar Marathe for Petitioner. On the oral request of Mr. Marathe, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petition is restored to file. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J) 2 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2838 of 2009 Sambhaji Kondiram Kadam .. Petitioner -Versus- Kisan Baburao Kadam & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Shankar Marathe, for Petitioner. Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP for State. CORAM: SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 17th November, 2011. P.C.:- 1 This petition takes exception to the order dated 29th August 2009 passed by the Sessions Court, Pune allowing Criminal Revision Application No. 1140 of 2008 preferred by respondent nos.2 and 3 to challenge the order of issuance of process against them for the offence punishable under Section 500 Indian Penal Code. 2. The petitioner had filed Summary Criminal Case No. 19803 of 2008 in the Court of J.M.F.C. (Court No.9), Pune alleging that respondent nos. 2 and 3 committed the 3 offence punishable under Section 500 Indian Penal Code by circulating a defamatory letter dated 27th March 2008. As per the complaint, the letter is addressed by the President of “Sharad Pawar Vichar Manch”, Deur, Taluka Koregaon, District Satara to the Chairman of Mudhai Devi Shikshan Sanstha, Deur, Taluka Koregaon, one Sarjerao Kadam. As per the complaint, the signature on the defamatory letter is of respondent no.2 and the address handwritten on the envelope containing the letter is of respondent no.3, the daughter of respondent no.2. The learned Magistrate recorded statement of the petitioner and petitioner’s witness Rajendra Bhimrao Kadam and on appreciation of those statements, issued process against respondent nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 500 Indian Penal Code. The revisional Court however was of the opinion that there was no material on record for issuance of process against the respondents. 3. I have carefully gone through the complaint as well as statements of petitioner and Rajendra Kadam. In the statement, the petitioner does not even so much state that the signature appearing on the defamatory letter is of respondent no.2. Therefore, there is no connection whatsoever brought on record between the defamatory letter and respondent no.2. As regards respondent no.3, the petitioner states that from the envelope, the address was written in the hand of respondent no.3 and that he has verified the same. There is nothing in the evidence of the 4 petitioner to indicate as to what was the manner in which the handwriting was verified by the petitioner. Thus, it is clear from the statement of the petitioner himself that there is no connection brought on record between the defamatory letter and respondent nos.2 and 3. Therefore, revisional court has correctly set aside the order of issuance of process by the Magistrate. Mr. Marathe learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to draw attention of the Court to the manner, in which the revision application was disposed off. He submits that the revisional court was not correct in comparing the signature of respondent no.2. Even if the contention canvassed is to be accepted the order of issuance of process by the learned Magistrate cannot be justified. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)