HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P. No. 4307 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 to 4 /A2 to A5 are accused of offence punishable under Section 500 IPC along with A1 in CC No. 945 of 2006 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. 2. Subject matter of the imputation is contained in paper publication issued by an advocate, by way of public notice on 13- 11-2005 in Deccan Chronicle daily newspaper. The public notice reads that the said advocate issued the same on instructions of his client Mohd. Shah Nawaz Khan, who is A1 and who is Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney Holder for 1. C.Surya Kumar (A2) 2. C.Subhash Chander (A3) 3. C.Sudesh (A4) and 4. C.Sudershan (A-5). The said public notice was issued in respect of house property bearing No. 12-2- 569 located in 719 Square yards of site in Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. Addresees in public notice are 7 in number including the complainant/2nd respondent herein. A1 is shown as the 3rd respondent herein. The said public notice reads that the complainant and six others were offering flat for sale to the general public and that A2 to A5, who are principals of A1, are entitled for share in the said property and that without their knowledge A1 started construction of multi storied building and that it is illegal. The general public were cautioned not to enter into any agreement with the complainant and six others pertaining to the said property. 3. No doubt, a public notice giving caution to the public per se does not constitute defamation in view of Exception 9 to Section 499 IPC. It was also held so in Bhaskar Raj Saxena V. Sudershan Ausekhar[1]. But the 2nd respondent/complainant is not aggrieved by other contents of the public notice, which are narrated above. He is aggrieved by certain terminology used in the said public notice. The objectionable terminology published by the complainant in the complaint is to the effect that the complainant and six others “colluded together to cause wrongful loss” to A2 to A5 and “created false document”. In the public notice, there are no details about the alleged collusion and details of the alleged false document. Therefore, it cannot be said that those imputations made in the public notice are not defamatory in nature and are caution to the intending public, who may purchase flats. 4. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the said public notice was given on the instructions of A1/ 2nd respondent and not on the instructions given by the petitioners/A2 to A5. But, names of the petitioners/A2 to A5 are disclosed in the public notice as the principals of A1, who is a General Power of Attorney Holder. In fact, the public notice was not issued by A1 directly, but by his advocate, DVN Acharya. That will not absolve A1 from liability to face consequences of the alleged objectionable imputation contained in the public notice. In the similar way, A2 to A5 who are principals of A1, on whose instructions the public notice was given, cannot absolve themselves from liability for the offence. Whether the GPA in favour of A1 executed by A2 to A5 authorised A1 to give any public notice regarding the property is a question of fact, which has to be finalized by the trial court on production of relevant documents in defence to the complaint. This court cannot undertake scrutiny of the defence version on facts in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Thus, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash the proceedings in the lower court. 5. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt. 19-11-2010 Mjl/* [1] 2001(1) ALD (Crl.) 255 (AP)