IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.2710 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: November 03, 2011 Gurminder Singh & another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Kamal Jeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioners. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This revision petition is directed against judgment of conviction recorded by the Trial Court convicting the petitioners for commission of offence under Section 500 IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The judgment has been upheld by the lower Appellate Court. Criminal Revision No.2710 of 2011 [2] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that defamatory material Exh.P-6 and Exh.P-7, originals of which are Exh.PW4/A and Exh.PW5/A, was complaint(s) made to the Senior Superintendent of Police, and therefore, was not circulated. 3. I have considered the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. It is a finding of fact recorded by the Courts below that publication of imputations by way of circulating the applications among members of Bar Association, concerning the reputation of the complainant, was made with intent to harm the reputation of the complainant who is member of District Bar Association, Bathinda. Respondent-complainant is an Advocate practicing at District Courts, Bathinda and his credentials have been noted by the Courts below. 5. Learned counsel has not pointed out any relevant piece of evidence that has not been considered by the Courts below, that has caused manifest injustice. Learned counsel further has not been able to show perverse reading of evidence. 6. No ground for interference in revisional jurisdiction is made out. 7. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) November 03, 2011 JUDGE avin Criminal Revision No.2710 of 2011 [3] 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?