Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.60 of 2003. Dated of Decision: March 16, 2010. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ishwari Nand. …… Appellant. Versus Kishan Singh ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant : Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Shweta Julka, Advocate, vice Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral) : The appellant herein was the complainant in case No.4/2 of 2001, decided on 2.11.2002. At the end of trial, the respondent was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and his acquittal has been challenged in this appeal. The facts in brief, giving rise to the present appeal, can be stated thus. The complainant remained as a President of the Gram Panchayat, Nither and he also was a member of Panchayat Samiti earlier. Thereafter, he started his business and opened a shop under the head and style “M/s Khoob Ram and Ishwari Nand” in village Nither. He commanded respect in the illaqa. It is alleged that on 25.1.2001, at about 3.30 p.m., the respondent while passing - 2 - through his shop alleged that the complainant had swallowed Rs.30,000/- of Gram Panchayat Nither, which was a false imputation made by the respondent and these remarks lowered his prestige and status in the society. The complainant led the preliminary evidence. Finding sufficient grounds against the respondent, he was summoned by the learned trial Court, for the aforesaid offence. Notice of accusation was put to him on 6.9.2001, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the complainant examined himself as CW-1 and also produced CW-2 Sunder Singh, CW-3 Ravin Singh and thereafter moved an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to examine Longu Ram, Secretary Panchayat, which was rejected by the learned trial Court, but in revision, his prayer was allowed by the High Court. Thereafter, he was examined in the Court as CW-4 that amount of Rs.25000/- granted to Panchayat was utilized for the work allotted. Respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure. He denied the circumstances which were found attendant upon him and alleged old enmity. After seeking permission to examine himself as a witness, he stepped into witness box as DW-1 and also produced DW-2 Roop Singh, to substantiate his plea. - 3 - At the end of the trial, respondent was acquitted, on the grounds that the relations inter-se the parties were strained, because of the previous litigation and also that the statement of the complainant and his witnesses were biased and not meeting the ingredients of the offence. Shri Vinay Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the complainant has been able to prove that the respondent wrongly declared publicly that he had grabbed and swallowed the Panchayat funds amounting to Rs.30,000/- and it has not been accounted for in the Panchayat and besides this amount, much more amount of the Panchayat was swallowed by him. He further ventilated that the respondent made false imputations without any rhyme and reasons to lower down his prestige in the society. On the other hand, Miss Shweta Julka, learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings of the learned trial Court, as having been borne out from the record. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully reappraised the evidence on record. Although, in the complaint, the appellant has alleged that the respondent publicly declared in the front of his shop that he had swallowed the Panchayat fund worth Rs.30,000/-, which were not counted for by him and besides - 4 - it, some more amount of the Panchayat, which lowered his prestige in the society, but pertinently in the complaint, he did not mention the names of any of the witnesses, who happened to be present when the respondent uttered these words. In the list of witnesses, appended with the complaint, he has mentioned the names of three witnesses, out of whom, CW-2 Sunder Singh was a close relative of the complainant, was examined. In his statement, complainant when examined as CW-1 in the Court, did not state about the presence of said Sunder Singh at the relevant time and even Sunder Singh did not testify that the other witnesses namely Ravin Singh (CW-3) was also present. The appellant-complainant is resident of village Nither whereas, the witnesses produced by him are the residents of village Jholi, a different village. As to how, they happen to be present there is not explained by him. Therefore, their presence at the date of incident, in or around the shop of complainant is also doubtful. Not only this, there is absolutely not even an iota of evidence to show that the alleged imputation, directly or indirectly has lowered the moral or character of the complainant in the estimation of other persons. In view of the above facts and also the fact that the parties admitted the litigation with each other over the Panchayat election and were also locked in the civil litigation, the allegations made in the complaint, appears to - 5 - be highly doubtful and the learned trial Court was correct in recording the findings of acquittal, based upon the evidence on record. Therefore, no interference is called for. Appeal is without any merit, as such, dismissed. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. The matter stands disposed of. March 16, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.