1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.305 OF 1998. Indrabhan Kisan Gholap, Age 32 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o Hanmantgaon, Taluka Shrirampur, Dist.Ahmednagar. ... Appellant. Versus 1. Bhaskar Baburao Fanase, Age 42 years, Occ.Business, R/o Hanmantgaon, Taluka Shrirampur, Dist.Ahmednagar, 2. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents. ... Mr.N.D.Sonavane, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.B.Jadhav, advocate holding for Mr.R.N.Dhorde, advocate for the Respondednt No.1. Mrs.Y.M. Kshirsagar, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 08.09.2009. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against judgment of acquittal rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), in a private complaint case instituted by the appellant for offences punishable U/ss 182, 211, 500, 502 of the I.P.Code. 2. The Respondent filed a complaint with the Police on March 15, 1994 alleging that the appellant along with two more persons robbed him of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand). He alleged that the appellant abused him and took away the amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) from his trouser at point of a broken bottle. He further alleged that the appellant was in drunken condition and threatened him to cause his death by means of the broken bottle of glass. The complaint further indicated that the appellant was accompanied by two unknown persons at the relevant time and the incident occurred in the night around 9-00 p.m. The Police carried out certain investigation into to the complaint. The Police submitted report U/s 169 of the 3 Cr.P.C. as a result of the investigation. The Investigating Officer submitted report to the effect that no sufficient evidence could be found against the appellant to file charge-sheet. So, the discharge of the appellant U/s 169 of the Cr.P.C. was sought. The learned Judicial Magistrate allowed such a request and discharged the appellant in connection with Crime No. 28/1994, registered at Loni Police Station for offence U/s 392 of the I.P. Code. 3. The appellant thereafter filed a private complaint case. In his complaint, the appellant alleged that the Criminal complaint lodged by the Respondent was actuated with malice. The appellant further alleged that the Respondent was knowing that the information given to the Police was false. He alleged that due to false complaint lodged by the Respondent, he has been defamated and is put to great loss. He further alleged that the Respondent (accused) managed to get a false news published in "Daily Lokmat" and "Daily Sarwamat". The photograph of the appellant was published in the newspaper 4 called "Daily Sarwamat" and the news item was published which depicted him as a robber. The appellant alleged that his prestige was lowered down in the esteem of his friends, persons knowing him and other members of the society due to the false accusation made by the Respondent. 4. The Respondent was tried before the learned Judicial Magistrate in the Summary Case No.2165/1994 for the offences of defamation. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that the offence of defamation is not proved against the Respondent. The learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the appellant did not adduce any evidence to show that the newspaper items published in the Daily Newspapers" were at the behest of the Respondent. The learned Judicial Magistrate noticed that the Respondent was not instrumental in the publication of such news items and there was no proof to infer that he gave such news items to the concerned newspapers. On the basis of such findings, the Respondent came to be acquitted. 5 5. Heard learned advocates for the parties and learned A.P.P. 6. On going through the evidence tendered by the appellant(complainant) it is amply clear that the Respondent has no concern with the publication of the news items in the daily newspapers. There is no shred of evidence to hold the Respondent responsible for publication of the said news items in the daily newspapers. The testimony of the appellant purports to show that he was arrested by the Police due to the complaint lodged by the Respondent. He narrated as to how he felt defamed due to the publication of the newspaper items. His main grievance is regarding publication of the news items. The reporters and editors of the newpapers were not arrayed as accused persons. The version of the appellant reveals that on 15.3.1994, the Respondent had withdrawn an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) from Pravara Cooperative Bank, Branch at Songaon. The fact that the Respondent had withdrawn such amount from the Bank on the same day is clear from testimony of 6 P.W.4 Liladhar Nemade, who was attached to Loni Police Station as PSI in the relevant period. If the complaint lodged by the Respondent was false and filed with malicious intention then the appellant was free to take Civil action for recovery of damages and compensation. Filing of complaint by itself does not tantamount to defamation. Such complaint would come within the ambit of Exception VIII of Section 499 of the I.P.Code. The Exception 8th appended to Section 499 of the I.P.Code reads as follows : "Eighth Exception - Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person . - It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation." 7. Thus, when the Respondent lodged the complaint with the Police and made accusation against the appellant to the lawful authority, 7 unless it is proved that such accusation was preferred with malafide intention to defame the appellant, the act of the Respondent would fall under the eighth exception. 8. What emerges from the record is that the Investigating Officer could not find sufficient evidence to file charge-sheet and, therefore, submitted an application U/s 169 of the Cr.P.C. The testimony of the appellant does not show that the Respondent was having animosity and, therefore, lodged false complaint. The appellant stated before the trial Court that they were on enmical terms due to political reasons. He did not specify what was the nature of the enmity and to which political parties or faction he and the Respondent belong. He admitted that he never contested any election nor was holding any post. He also admitted that the Respondent is an agriculturist and deals in a business. The evidence of the appellant is totally vague as regards the reason for the enmity on account of internal politics in the village. The learned Magistrate has duly considered the versions of 8 the complainant and other witnesses. The impugned judgment of acquittal appears to be proper and based on the material placed on record. 9. It is well settled that unless judgment of acquittal is found to be patently erroneous, normally, the appellate Court should not interfere with the same. In this view of the matter, I do not find any substantial reason to disturb the findings of the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crappeal30598