Bangalore District Court In 1. Ravikumar vs In B.A. Harish Gowda on 7 July, 2020 BEFORE THE LXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY. (CCH67) DATED: This the 7 th day of July, 2020 PRESENT Smt. K.KATHYAYANI., B.Com, L.L.M . LXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Crl.Appeal.Nos.1353/2017 & 1660/2017 Appellants in 1. Ravikumar, Crl.Appeal S/o Late Kenche Gowda, No.1353/2017 Editor, Publisher and Printer of and respondents Parivala Pathrike, Journal, in Crl.Appeal R/o Attiguppe Village, No.1660/2017 : Maralavadi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District. 2. R.K.Ravi Kumar, S/o Late Kenche Gowda, Reporter of Parival Pathrike Journal, R/o Attiguppe Village, Maralavadi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District. (By Sri.S.K.Jayaramu, Advocate.) /Vs/ Respondent in B.A. Harish Gowda, Crl.Appeal Aged about 65 years, No.1353/2017 The then Director of and appellant in Pre University Education, Crl.Appeal Department and No.1660/2017 : Special Officer CET Cell, 2 Crl.A.No.1353 & 1660 /2017 Bengaluru. (Now retired from Service as Secretary to Government Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department.) Residential Address No.3, Jaladarshini Layout, New BEL Road, Bengaluru 560 054. (By Sri.S.R.Raviprakash, Advocate .) COMMON JUDGMENT Both the above appeals are filed under Section 374(3) of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment passed by the learned V ACMM., Bengaluru on 30.08.2017 in CC.No.20643/2000 i.e., the complainant has preferred the Crl.Appeal No.1660/2017 seeking enhancement of the quantum of sentence. On the other hand, the accused has filed the Crl.Appeal No.1353/2017 seeking to set aside the sentence passed against him in the impugned judgment. 2. Since both these appeals are filed challenging the same judgment and thus, on the same set of facts and on the same evidence on record, these appeals are taken together for common judgment. 3 Crl.A.No.1353 & 1660 /2017 3. For the sake of convenience, the ranks of the parties are retained as they are before the learned Magistrate Court. 4. The brief facts of the case in both the appeals are one and the same and they are; a) The complainant has preferred the private complaint against the accused under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence of defamation punishable under Section 500 of IPC on the allegation that the accused has written, printed and published defamatory article containing false imputations against him in an issue of the journal "Parivala Patrike" dated 15.09.2000 and thereby also committed the offences under Sections 4, 5, 13, 14 and 15 of the Press and Registration of Books Act of 1867 (for short, "the Act"). b) On going through the evidence on record and after hearing arguments of both the sides, the learned Magistrate allowed the above complaint convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC and Section 4 read with Sections 13 and 14 of the Act. 4 Crl.A.No.1353 & 1660 /2017 c) Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused filed Crl.Appeal No.610/2002 on the file of the Court of Fast Track (Sessions) Judge at Bengaluru, wherein, the Appellate Court had set aside the sentence in so far as the offences under the Act and upheld the conviction and sentence in respect of the offences under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC. d) Aggrieved by the above judgment, the accused approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in Crl.R.P.No.1045/2006 and by virtue of the order passed on 15.07.2013 in the above revision petition, the matter was remanded to the trial Court for continuation of the trial from the point of cross examination. e) After the remand of the case, in order to rectify the mistakes, the complainant had filed applications under Sections 91 and 254(2) of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court requesting to call for the records and to lead additional evidence which came to be allowed. 5 Crl.A.No.1353 & 1660 /2017 f) Being aggrieved by the same,