1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.172 OF 2010 Suresh H. Nabriya ...Applicant. v. Vitthal Anantrao Randive & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. Priyal G. Sarda, adv. For the Applicant. Ms.S.V.Gajare, APP For the Respondent No.2/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JUNE 16, 2010 P.C. 1 Present applicant has filed a complaint under Section 501 against the respondent no.1 alleging that he has published certain material in newspaper “Maharashtra Lokmanas” dated 15th September, 1997, edited by the respondent/accused himself, knowing that the said material was defamatory against the complainant. From the publication, it appears that mother of the complainant was the landlady. There was dispute between the landlady and the tenant. Respondent/accused claimed that he was tenant and the landlady and her advocate son were trying to forcibly evict him from the premises where he was running Sonmarg Hair Dressers . It was contended that the landlady and her son were making Sonmarg Hair Dressers as their target to evict the tenants from their premises illegally. In the title of the publication itself and in 2 the body of the publication, it was suggested that formation of association of the tenants was a necessity of time and therefore, the office bearers were required to give attention to that. Complainant contended that it was defamatory. The trial Court after hearing the parties, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 501 and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay fine. That order was challenged by the accused in Criminal Appeal No.9/05. The learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction holding that it was bonafide publication and no defamation was made out. Against the acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge, original complainant has filed this revision application. It appears that a suit was filed by the landlady, who was mother of the complainant, for eviction against two persons on different grounds. Suit was decreed on one of the grounds. According to the accused, he was actual tenant and not his brother or sister-in-law and it was contended by him that suit was filed against his family members just to evict the tenant forcibly and illegally. 2 I have perused the impugned judgment. I have also perused the publication whereby accused had allegedly defamed the complainant. Two conflicting views have been taken by the Courts 3 below. It is well settled position of law that the prosecution has to prove offence beyond reasonable doubt and also that if the accused is acquitted , appellate or revisional authority would be slow in disturbing the same unless such Court comes to conclusion that view taken by the Court acquitting the accused was impossible or per-se wrong. It is also settled position of law that merely because two views could be possible, the appellate or revisional Court would not substitute its view for the view taken by the Court below. It is true that two Courts below had taken different views but this Court will be required to consider whether view taken by the Sessions Court acquitting the accused was per-se wrong or impossible. After perusal of the alleged defamatory material, which was published and the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court, I do not find that view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge is per-se wrong or it is impossible to take such a view. Therefore , I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order. 3 For the aforesaid reasons, revision application stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)