Karnataka High Court
Ravikumar vs B A Harish Gowda on 31 May, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.175/2021
C/W.
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.550/2020
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.552/2020
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.175/2021:
BETWEEN:
B.A.HARISH GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
RETD. IAS OFFICER,
THE THEN DIRECTOR OF
PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT AND SPECIAL
OFFICER CET, CET CELL, BENGALURU
(NOW RETIRED FROM SERVICE AS
SECRETARY TO GOVT. FOOD AND
CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER
AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT,
RESIDING AT NO.3,
JALADARSHINI LAYOUT,
NEW BEL ROAD,
BENGALURU-560054. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.R.RAVI PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RAVI KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
2
S/O KENCHE GOWDA,
EDITOR, PUBLISHER AND PRINTER
OF PARIVALA PATHRIKE JOURNAL,
R/O. ATTIGUPPE VILLAGE,
MARALAVADI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562112
2. R.K.RAVI KUMAR
AGE: MAJOR,
S/O KENCHE GOWDA,
REPORTER OF PARIVALA PATHRIKE JOURNAL,
R/O. ATTIGUPPE VILLAGE,
MARALAVADI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562112. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PAVAN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENHANCE THE SENTENCE DATED 07.07.2020, IMPOSED ON THE
ACCUSED/RESPONDENT HEREIN BY LEARNED SESSION JUDGE
OF THE COURT OF THE LXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY IN CRL.A.NOs.1353/2017
AND 1660/2017 TO A REASONABLE PERIOD IN ADDITION TO
SENTENCE OF FINE.
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.550/2020:
BETWEEN:
1. RAVI KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O KENCHE GOWDA,
EDITOR, PUBLISHER AND PRINTER
OF PARIVALA PATHRIKE JOURNAL,
R/O. ATTIGUPPE VILLAGE,
MARALAVADI HOBLI,
3
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117
2. R.K.RAVI KUMAR
S/O LATE KENCHE GOWDA,
REPORTER OF PARIVALA PATHRIKE-JOURNAL,
R/O. ATTIGUPPE VILLAGE,
MARALAVADI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PAVAN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
B.A.HARISH GOWDA
S/O LATE B.A.GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
THE THEN DIRECTOR OF
PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT AND SPECIAL
OFFICER CET, CET CELL, BENGALURU
(NOW RETIRED FROM SERVICE AS
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FOOD AND
CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER
AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT,
RESIDING AT NO.3,
JALADARSHINI LAYOUT,
NEW BEL ROAD,
BENGALURU-560054. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.R.RAVI PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED
BY THE V A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.20643/2000,
DATED 30.08.2017 AND JUDGMENT DATED 07.07.2020 IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1353/2017 BY THE LXVI ADDITIONAL
4
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY AND
ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS.
IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.552/2020:
BETWEEN:
1. RAVI KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O KENCHE GOWDA,
EDITOR, PUBLISHER AND PRINTER
OF PARIVALA PATHRIKE JOURNAL,
R/O. ATTIGUPPE VILLAGE,
MARALAVADI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562117
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 562117. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PAVAN KUMAR G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
B.A.HARISH GOWDA
S/O LATE B.A.GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
THE THEN DIRECTOR OF
PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT AND SPECIAL
OFFICER CET, CET CELL, BENGALURU
(NOW RETIRED FROM SERVICE AS
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FOOD AND
CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER
AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT),
5
RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS:
NO.3, JALADARSHINI LAYOUT,
NEW BEL ROAD,
BENGALURU-560054. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.R.RAVI PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W. SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED
BY THE V A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.20643/2000,
DATED 30.08.2017 AND JUDGMENT DATED 07.07.2020 IN
CRL.A.NO.1660/2017 BY THE LXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 500 OF IPC AND ACQUIT THE
PETITIONERS.
THESE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITIONS HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.04.2022 THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Crl.R.P.No.175/2021 is filed to enhance the sentence
imposed on the respondent-accused in Crl.A.Nos.1353/2017 and
1660/2017 dated 07.07.2020 passed by the LXVI Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
2. Crl.R.P.Nos.550/2020 and 552/2020 are filed to set
aside the judgment of conviction and sentence in
C.C.No.20643/2000 dated 30.08.2017 passed by the V
Additional C.M.M., at Bengaluru and the judgment passed in
Crl.A.Nos.1353/2017 and 1660/2017 dated 07.07.2020 passed
by the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
City.
3. The parties are referred to in their original rankings
as complainant and accused for the convenience of the Court, in
order to avoid confusion.
4. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant
before the Trial Court is that the accused committed the offences
punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC as he had printed
and published defamatory articles in Kannada Journal "Parivala
Pathrike" owned by him and also invoked the offences
punishable under Sections 4, 5, 13, 14 and 15 of the Press and
Registration of Books Act, 1867 for having made false
declaration before the District Magistrate in the bottom of the
last page of journal about the place of printing the said journal.
5. Based on the complaint and sworn statement, the
Trial Court took cognizance of the offence in respect of the PCR
which is numbered as C.C.No.20643/2000 and summons was
issued to the accused persons and accused No.1 appeared
before the Trial Court in response to the summons and in the
order sheet, an indication was made on 21.04.2001 that accused
Nos.1 and 2 are one and the same person and the same is not
disputed. The accused, who has been secured before the Trial
Court did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried for the offence
punishable under Section 500 of IPC and Sections 13 and 14 of
the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867.
6. The complainant, in order to prove his case,
examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined four witnesses as
P.Ws.2 to 5 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P29 to
establish that the imputations made against him in the impugned
articles were false, malicious and per-se defamatory and that the
accused made false declaration before the District Magistrate
with regard to the place of printing the journal. The accused, in
order to prove his case, neither examined himself nor produced
any documents.
7. The Trial Court, after considering the material on
record, vide judgment dated 03.10.2002 convicted the accused
for the offence punishable under Section 499 read with Section
500 of IPC for one year and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-,
in default, simple imprisonment for 2 months. The Trial Court
also imposed fine of Rs.1000/- and simple imprisonment for two
months for the offence under Section 5 read with Section 14 of
Press and Registration Act. In default of payment of fine, to
undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.
8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
sentence, the accused has filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.610/2002
before the Appellate Court and the same was allowed in part,
confirming the judgment of conviction for the offence under
Section 500 of IPC and set aside the judgment of conviction and
sentence for the other offences.
9. Being aggrieved by the judgment allowing the appeal
in part, the accused had filed Crl.R.P.No.1045/2006 and the
same was allowed vide order dated 15.07.2013 and set aside the
order and remanded the matter directing the Trial Court to
proceed with the matter from the stage of cross-examination of
P.Ws.1 and 2. After remand, inspite of sufficient opportunity
being given to him by the Trial Court, the witness P.W.3 was not
cross-examined but, P.W.2 was cross-examined and witness
summons sent to P.W.3 could not be served on him as his
whereabouts could not be traced. Hence, the complainant gave
up his evidence. After the remand also, the accused did not
examine any witness and also not produced any document and
once again, the matter was heard and vide judgment dated
30.08.2017, the Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced
him for a period of 6 months for the offence under Section 500
of IPC and imposed fine of Rs.25,000/-. In default to pay the
fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for
a period of 3 months. Hence, both the complainant as well as
the accused have filed an appeal. The complainant, in his appeal
in Crl.A.No.1660/2017, sought for an order to enhance the
sentence and the accused in Crl.A.No.1353/2017, questioned the
conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.
10. The Appellate Court, dismissed the appeal filed by
the accused and allowed the appeal filed by the complainant,
however modified the sentence enhancing the imprisonment for
a period of 9 months with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of 3 months and set aside the order imposing fine of
Rs.25,000/-. Being aggrieved by the order of modification of
sentence, these three revision petitions are filed by the accused
as well as the complainant.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-
complainant in Crl.R.P.No.175/2021 would vehemently contend
that the Appellate Court has committed error in enhancing the
punishment for only 9 months and Trial Court also committed
error in awarding sentence of 6 months and vehemently contend
that, in a case of imputation i.e., defamatory per-se, the burden
shifts upon the accused to prove that imputation false within any
of the exceptions to Section 499 of IPC. In the case on hand,
the document Ex.P2 produced before the Trial Court is clear that
the document printed and published by the accused is per-se
defamatory and the same is done with an intention to defame
the complainant. He would also contend that the accused
resorted to very unethical practices as defence strategy to defeat
the process of justice and nothing was placed before the Court
that the said publication was made within the exceptions to
Section 499 of IPC.
12. He would further contend that, though the Appellate
Court has taken note of the conduct of the accused and he is
pursuing the matter from the year 2000 when the defamatory
per-se statement was made against the complainant and also
not led any evidence to substantiate his defence. It is also his
contention that both the Courts failed to take note of the same
and ought to have imposed severe punishment and failed to take
note of the gravity of the allegation made against the
respondent-accused herein and the said publication is also made
with an intention to defame the complainant and the said
publication is also blatantly false and defamatory per-se and the
same has not been taken note by the Trial Court as well as the
Appellate Court, while awarding the sentence and the sentence
not commensurate with the gravity of the offence. Hence,
prayed this Court to enhance the sentence.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-
complainant in Crl.R.P.No.175/2021 also vehemently contend
that the accused had indulged in making false imputations in the
journal and the document Ex.P2 reveals that it is defamatory
per-se which fact has not been rebutted by the accused either
before the Trial Court or before the Appellate Court or before this
Court in these petitions or on the earlier occasions. The false
and concocted imputations directed against the complainant by
the accused in Ex.P2 are not only defamatory, but they are also
very grave in nature meant to ensure deep impact on the minds
of the reader and words will not be sufficient to describe the
mental agony, humiliation and physical hardship undergone by
the complainant in the past 20 years. The very nature of false
imputations reproduced in the complaint is sufficient to prove
that the punishment imposed upon the accused to convict is
insufficient. The enhancement by the Appellate Court is
therefore very well justified but, not sufficient for the reasons
stated in paragraph Nos.12 to 14 of the revision petition. Hence,
it requires interference of this Court to enhance the sentence.
14. The counsel also relied upon the additional
memorandum of arguments, wherein also reproduced the false
imputations made against the complainant which could be seen
in the complaint dated 06.12.2000 which is marked as Ex.P1 and
at that time, the complainant was the Director of the Pre-
University Education, Special Officer of CET Cell and the
complainant also held important posts like CEO of KIADB,
Managing Director of Karnataka Co-Op Apex Bank Limited,
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Commissioner of Public
Instruction, Secretary to Government Food, Civil Supplies and
Consumer Affairs etc. Hence, it requires interference.
15. The counsel also, in support of his argument, relied
upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BACHAN
SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB reported in AIR
1980 SC 267, wherein the Apex Court held that there was
nothing to prevent the High Court from invoking its powers
under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. and to make
an order for the enhancement of the sentence. The counsel also
brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.8 of the
judgment for exercising the revisional jurisdiction for
enhancement of the sentence.
16. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of EKNATH SHANKARRAO
MUKKAWAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in AIR
1977 SC 1177, wherein the Apex Court held that the new Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has not abolished the High Court's
power of enhancement of sentence by exercising revisional
jurisdiction, suo motu. The provision for appeal against
inadequacy of sentence by the State Government or the Central
Government does not lead to such a conclusion. High Court's
power of enhancement of sentence, in an appropriate case, by
exercising suo motu power of revision, is still extant under
Section 397 read with Section 401 Criminal Procedure Code,
1973, inasmuch as the High Court can "by itself" call for the
record of proceedings of any inferior criminal Court under its
jurisdiction. The provision of Section 401 (4) is a bar to a party,
who does not appeal, when appeal lies, but applies in revision.
Such a legal bar under Section 401 (4) does not stand in the
way of the High Court's exercise of power of revision, suo motu,
which continues as before in the new Code.
The counsel referring the principles laid down in these two
judgments would vehemently contend that the Court can
exercise revisional powers and even the High Court can exercise
revisional jurisdiction, suo-motu.
17. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of ROCHE PRODUCTS LIMITED VS.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS & ANOTHER reported in 1989
SUPP (2) SCC 532 and brought to notice of this Court exercise
of both the jurisdiction by referring to Section 130(2) alone is
only an irregularity not affecting the order and reference of a
wrong provision of statute will not affect the order when
authority has power under statute to make such order.
The counsel would vehemently contend that this judgment
is aptly applicable to the case on hand that the Appellate Court is
having power to revisit the material available on record and even
assuming that, no appeal lies and if revision lies, the judgment is
very clear that wrong provision of statute will not affect the
order, when the authority has power under the statute to make
such an order.
18. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in the
case of P.K. PALANISAMY VS. N. ARUMUGHAM AND
ANOTHER reported in (2009) 9 SCC 173, wherein the Apex
Court held that, Nomenclature/Form/Form of proceedings, defect
in cause-title of plaint/prayer for relief in plaint, relief on a
specific provision granted on a pleading based on a general
provision is sustainable. The plaintiff seeking extension of time
for payment of Court fees under the specific provision of Section
149 not mentioning it and wrongly mentioning Section 148. The
Court granting relief of extension of time for payment of deficit
fees under Section 149, the Apex Court held that the same is
sustainable. The counsel also brought to the notice of this Court
paragraph Nos.26 and 27, wherein discussion is made with
regard to seeking of relief as sought and not the invoking of
provisions.
19. The counsel also relied upon the unreported
judgment of this Court passed in CRL.A.NO.52/2007 dated
11.12.2013 in the case of SRI R. PRASANNA VS. SRI H.R.
SANJEEVA, wherein this Court has taken note of the fact that
the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four
months and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo,
simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days for the offence
punishable under Section 502 of IPC. This Court also further
observed that, the First Appellate Court has failed to notice
presumption-requisites to invoke exception 1 or 2 to Section 499
of IPC and accused has to prove that alleged imputation is true
and also taken note of exceptions and enhanced the fine
amount. In default to pay the fine, ordered to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months and out of the fine
amount, ordered to pay Rs.40,000/- in favour of the complainant
as compensation for the offence under Section 500 of IPC.
20. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.184 OF
2014 and connected petitions in the case of SUBRAMANIAN
SWAMY VS. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW & ORS,
wherein the Apex Court has taken note of the offences under
Sections 499 and 500 of IPC and held that, if it be for the public
good that the imputation should be made or published. "Public
good" has to be treated to be a fact. The onus of proving these
two ingredients, namely, truth of the imputation and the
publication of the imputation for the public good, is on the
accused.
21. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS. UNION
OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW AND OTHERS reported in
(2016) 7 SCC 221, wherein the Apex Court has discussed in
detail with regard to Sections 499 and 500 of IPC regarding
criminal defamation has its own independent identity and law
relating to defamation has to be understood as it stood at the
time when the Constitution came into force.
22. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of SUKRA MAHTO VS. BASDEO KUMAR
MAHTO AND ANOTHER reported in 1971 (1) SCC 885,
wherein the Apex Court discussed with regard to Section 499 of
IPC, Ninth Exception and also with regard to Section 52, good
faith and public good, both have to be satisfied and degree of
proof that has to be offered by the accused.
The counsel referring these judgments would vehemently
contend that the accused has not been examined before the Trial
Court to prove either good faith or the imputations have been
made for public good.
23. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of S.K. SUNDARAM : IN RE reported in
(2001) 2 SCC 171, wherein the Apex Court has discussed with
regard to Section 52, a person casting aspersions on another can
claim to have acted in good faith only if before doing so, he has
made a genuine and in-depth inquiry as to the facts.
24. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Kerala High Court in the case of KONATH MADHAVI AMMA VS.
S.M. SHARIEF AND ANOTHER reported in 1985 CRI. L. J.
1496, wherein the Kerala High Court has discussed with regard
to Sections 499 and 501 of IPC, Editor, Printer and Publisher of a
newspaper should exercise due care and caution in publishing
matter likely to defame others.
25. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of this
Court in the case of M. SOMASEKHAR VS. S.A. SUBBARAJU
reported in I.L.R. 1989 KAR 138 regarding production of copy
of newspaper from proper custody, the complainant entitled to
benefit under Section 7, although copy of declaration under
Section 5 not produced. In the absence of objection to copy of
newspaper produced, it was for accused to prove the same not
genuine and produce certificate under Section 8A to rebut
presumption under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of
Books Act, 1867.
26. The petitioners/accused have filed two revision
petitions i.e., Crl.R.P.Nos.550/2020 and 552/2020.
Crl.R.P.No.550/2020 is filed praying this Court to set aside the
judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the V Additional
C.M.M. at Bengaluru in C.C.No.20643/2000 dated 30.08.2017
and the judgment dated 07.07.2020 in Crl.A.No.1353/2017
passed by the Appellate Court and prayed this Court to acquit
the petitioners. The main contention urged in the grounds of the
revision is that, both the Courts have gravely erred in convicting
the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 500 of
IPC and sentencing which is manifestly erroneous and opposed
to the facts and circumstances of the case. He would further
contend that both the Courts have gravely erred in considering
the evidence of P.W.3, since he did not tender himself for cross-
examination. Hence, the evidence of P.W.3 ought to have been
discarded.
27. It is further contended that, P.W.2 is an another
witness and in his cross-examination, he has categorically
admitted that he does not know about the STD booth but, denies
the suggestion that he did not have any STD booth and further
he is a stranger to P.W.1 and also states that he does not know
about the complainant nor his reputation. It is also contended
that the entire facts does not reveal that there is no intention to
damage the reputation of the respondent, the appellants did not
have any intention or mensrea to commit the offence under
Section 500 of IPC. This fact has not been considered by both
the Courts and also not considered the cross-examination of
P.Ws.1 and 2 and failed to consider the defence of the petitioner.
28. Crl.R.P.No.552/2020 is filed to set aside the
judgment of conviction and the sentence passed by the V
Additional C.M.M. at Bengaluru in C.C.No.20643/2000 dated
30.08.2017 and the judgment dated 07.07.2020 in
Crl.A.No.1660/2017 passed by the Appellate Court and prayed
this Court to acquit the petitioners. The main grounds urged in
the revision is that the appeal filed by the respondent-
complainant under Section 374(3) of Cr.P.C. itself is not
maintainable because Section 374 of Cr.P.C. provides for an
appeal against the conviction and the complainant does not have
any right to file an appeal. It is also contended that the alleged
defamatory statement was published in the year 2000 and 20
years have elapsed and the accused is put to great hardship. It
is further contended that both the Courts have gravely erred in
considering the evidence of P.W.3 and other similar grounds
urged in the connected revision petitions are also urged in this
revision petition. Hence, prayed this Court to set aside the order
of conviction and sentence.
29. The learned counsel appearing for the accused would
vehemently contend that, no revision is maintainable against the
order of enhancement and hence, Crl.R.P.No.175/2021 is not
maintainable. The counsel would also vehemently contend that
the very appeal filed before the Appellate Court is not
maintainable but, the Appellate Court enhanced the sentence
erroneously even without jurisdiction. The counsel would
vehemently contend that the Trial Court had earlier convicted for
all the offences and the same has been set aside and there is no
provision in the Cr.P.C. for enhancement in private complaint
but, only State has got power to file an appeal for inadequate
sentence. The appeal provision made under Section 372 of
Cr.P.C. after the amendment is only against the acquittal
inadequate and if punishment is for lesser offence or for
imposing inadequate compensation.
30. The counsel for the accused would also vehemently
contend that both the Courts have considered the evidence of
P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5. The witness P.W.4, after the remand has
not appeared and not subjected himself for cross-examination
and his evidence has been considered and the Trial Court as well
as the Appellate Court have committed an error. This Court, in
Criminal Revision Petition No.1045/2006, while allowing the
same, given an opportunity to cross-examine all the witnesses.
He would also contend that the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be
believed and the same is a self-serving statement and he gave
evidence only with an intention to imprison the accused and his
evidence may be taken away.
31. In support of his argument, he relied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court passed in CRL.A.NO.555 OF 2020
dated 28.08.2020, wherein the Apex Court held that the appeal
under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. by the victim is a qualified one
which is maintainable in the event of acquittal of the accused or
convicting for lesser offence or for imposing inadequate
compensation only, whereas under Section 377 Cr.P.C. State
Government is empowered to prefer appeal to the High Court in
the event of inadequate sentence by the Sessions Court, the
victim cannot maintain appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. for
enhancement of sentence. The Apex Court also further observed
that at the same time, there is no provision for appeal by the
victim for questioning the order of sentence as inadequate and it
is open for the State Government to prefer an appeal, but
similarly, no appeal can be maintained by the victim under
Section 372 Cr.P.C. on the ground of inadequate sentence. It is
further observed that the remedy of appeal is creature of the
statute. Unless same is provided either under Code of Criminal
Procedure or by any other law for the time being in force no
appeal, seeking enhancement of sentence at the instance of the
victim, is maintainable. Hence, the very filing of the appeal as
well as revision before this Court is not maintainable.
32. In reply to the argument of the learned counsel for
the accused, the counsel appearing for the respondent-
complainant would vehemently contend that exercising of
powers without power is a bar and the Appellate Court has
exercised its power, though the appeal not lies but, revision lies
against the sentence. He would further contend that, in order to
prove the fact that publication was made for the public good and
with good faith, no material is placed before the Trial Court and
the accused even has not led any evidence. Further, while
publishing the same, no enquiry was made prior to publishing
the said publication and imputation was made with an intention
to defame the respondent-complainant. Hence, prayed this
Court to dismiss the appeal filed by the accused and allow the
revision petitions.
33. Having heard the arguments of the respective
counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the material
available on record, the points that would arise for consideration
of this Court are:
(i) Whether the revision petition filed by the complainant
requires consideration by this Court for enhancement
of sentence as sought ?
(ii) Whether the revision petition filed by the accused to
set aside the order passed in Crl.A.No.1353/2017
enhancing the sentence from six months to nine
months without any statute to file any appeal against
the sentence by the victim requires interference as
contended in the revision?
(iii) Whether the order passed by the Trial Court in
C.C.No.20643/2000 dated 30.08.2017 passed by the
V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at
Bengaluru and the order of confirmation of conviction
for the offence punishable under Sections 499 read
with Section 500 of IPC requires exercising the
revisional jurisdiction?
(iv) What order?
Point Nos.(i) and (ii):
34. Crl.RP.No.175/2021 is filed by the complainant to
enhance the sentence contending that the sentence passed by
the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is inadequate
taking note of the gravity of the offence and the same is not
commensurate with the gravity of the offence and both the
Courts failed to exercise its jurisdiction to impose appropriate
sentence for the Act committed by the accused. The other
revision petition is filed by the accused contending that the
Appellate Court has committed an error in enhancing the
sentence from six months to nine months and such an order is
passed without jurisdiction and statute does not provide any
such power to Appellate Court to entertain an appeal against the
sentence filed by the complainant. In the absence of any such
statutory powers, the Trial Court ought not to have entertained
the appeal.
35. The very contention of the complainant before this
Court is that the Appellate Court has committed an error in
enhancing the punishment for only nine moths and the Trial
Court has committed an error in awarding sentence of six
months and further vehemently contend that in the case of
imputation i.e., defamatory per se, the burden shifts upon the
accused to prove that the imputations comes within any of the
exceptions to Section 499 of IPC. The learned counsel also
would vehemently contend that the document - Ex.P2 produced
before the Trial Court is clear that the document printed and
published by the accused is per se defamatory, the same is done
with an intention to defame the complainant. The learned
counsel also would vehemently contend that the accused
resorted to very unethical practices viz., defense strategy to
defeat the process of justice and nothing was placed before this
Court to show that the said publication was made within the
exception to Section 499 of IPC. The learned counsel also would
vehemently contend that both the Courts have failed to take
note of the gravity of the allegation made against the
complainant in the said article - Ex.P2 and the said publication is
also blatantly false and defamatory per se and ought to have
imposed severe sentence against the accused and the said
sentence is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence.
The accused had indulged in making the false imputation in the
article and the accused has not rebutted the case of the
complainant by leading any evidence before the Trial Court. The
false and concocted imputations directed against the
complainant by the accused in Ex.P2 are not only defamatory,
but they are also very grave in nature meant to ensure deep
impact on the minds of the reader and the words will not be
sufficient to describe the mental agony, humiliation and
hardship. Hence, it requires enhancement.
36. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant relied
upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Bachan Singh's case
(supra), wherein the Apex Court held that there was nothing to
prevent the High Court from invoking its powers under Section
397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. and to make an order for
enhancement of the sentence.
37. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in Eknath Shankarrao Mukkawar's case (supra),
wherein, the Apex Court held that even the Court can exercise
the powers of suo motu.
38. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in Roche Products Limited's case (supra), having
referred to this judgment contended that the Apex Court is
having revisit the material available on record and even
assuming that, no appeal lies and if revision lies, the judgment is
very clear that wrong provision of statute will not affect the
order when authority has power under statute to make such
order.
39. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/accused relied upon the judgment of the Apex
Court passed in CRL.A.NO.555 OF 2020 dated 28.08.2020,
wherein the Apex Court held that the appeal under Section 372
of Cr.P.C., by the victim is a qualified one which is maintainable
in the event of acquittal of the accused or convicting for lesser
offence or for imposing inadequate compensation only, whereas
under Section 377 Cr.P.C., State Government is empowered to
prefer appeal to the High Court in the event of inadequate
sentence by the Sessions Court, the victim cannot maintain an
appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of
sentence. The Apex Court also further observed that at the
same time, there is no provision for appeal by the victim for
questioning the order of sentence as inadequate and it is open
for the State Government to prefer an appeal, but similarly, no
appeal can be maintained by the victim under Section 372
Cr.P.C., on the ground of inadequate sentence. It is further
observed that the remedy of appeal is creature of the statute.
Unless same is provided either under Code of Criminal Procedure
or by any other law for the time being in force no appeal,
seeking enhancement of sentence at the instance of the victim,
is maintainable.
40. Having considered the principles laid down in the
judgments referred by the complainant's counsel and also the
learned counsel appearing for the accused, it is very clear that
the remedy of appeal is creature of the statute and on perusal of
Section 372 of Cr.P.C., by the victim is qualified to file an appeal
in the event of acquittal of the accused or convicting for lesser
offence or for imposing inadequate compensation only. No
doubt, under the Code, there is a provision under Section 377 of
Cr.P.C., the State Government is empowered to prefer an appeal
in the High Court. But the Apex Court categorically says that
unless the remedy of appeal is created by the statute either
under the Code of Criminal Procedure or by any other law for the
time being in force no appeal, seeking enhancement of sentence
at the instance of victim, is maintainable.
41. In the case on hand also, the appeal was filed under
Section 374 of Cr.P.C., before the Trial Court and under Section
374 of Cr.P.C., no such provision is provided to file an appeal by
the victim against the order of the Trial Court for enhancement
of sentence. No doubt, there is a provision under Section 372 of
Cr.P.C., the same is also not provided an appeal for
enhancement of sentence. Hence, the Appellate Court ought not
to have entertained the said appeal for enhancement of sentence
and committed an error in enhancing the sentence when the
statute does not provide such an appeal. No doubt, when the
remedy provided to the State to file an appeal in the event of
inadequate sentence, it requires consideration to suitably amend
Section 372 of Cr.P.C., conferring the right to the victim also to
file an appeal making necessary amendment to Section 372 of
Cr.P.C., or otherwise it is a discrimination against the victim
when the appeal is provided to the State. Hence, it is
appropriate to direct the Central Government to make necessary
amendment to provide an opportunity to the victim also to
approach the Court for seeking an enhancement of sentence and
the said right of anomaly under the provisions of Section 372 of
Cr.P.C., requires to be set right, for insertion of a right to a
victim to question the order of sentence and seek for an
enhancement of sentence. The Apex Court also observed in the
order that the remedy of appeal is creature of the statute.
Unless same is provided either under Code of Criminal Procedure
or by any other law for the time being in force no appeal,
seeking enhancement of sentence at the instance of the victim,
is maintainable. Further, it is observed that, when the time
being no such provision is available and this Court also cannot
entertain the appeal. Hence, it requires interference of the order
of the Trial Court for enhancing of sentence. Hence, the revision
filed by the complainant deserves to be dismissed and the
appeal filed by the accused requires to be allowed by setting
aside the order of enhancement of sentence. In view of coming
to the conclusion that no statutory provision is provided to the
victim to file an appeal, the revision filed by the complainant
against the order of the Appellate Court and the Trial Court for
lesser sentence, is not maintainable. Consequently, the revision
filed by the accused deserves to be allowed and the order of the
Appellate Court requires to be set aside. Hence, I answer point
Nos.(i) and (ii), accordingly.
Point No.(iii):
42. The learned counsel appearing for the accused filed
an appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence
and also confirmation of conviction and sentence passed in
Crl.A.No.1660/2017 and also the order passed in
C.C.no.20643/2000 dated 30.08.2017. The case of the
complainant before the Trial Court is that the accused in his
article, which is marked as Ex.P2 made false imputations against
the complainant, which could be seen in the complaint dated
06.12.2000 - Ex.P1. His contention is that at the time of
publication of the said article, he was the Director of Pre-
University Education Department and the Special Officer of CET
Cell and also held important post viz., CEO., in KIADB; Managing
Director of Karnataka Co-operative Apex Bank Limited; the
Commissioner of Commercial taxes; the Commissioner of Public
Instructions; Secretary to Government, Food and Civil Supplies
and Consumer Affairs Department etc. He had discharged his
duties with utmost faith and honesty to the particular institutions
and this accused made false imputations in terms of Ex.P2, are
not only defamatory but they also very grave in nature meant to
ensure deep impact on the minds of the reader and the words
will not be sufficient to describe the mental agony, humiliation
and physical hardship undergone by the complainant in the past
20 years. The complainant in order to substantiate his
contention, he himself examined as P.W.1 and he got marked
several documents on his behalf and particularly he relied upon
the document Ex.P1 - complaint and also mainly relied upon the
document - Ex.P2 under which an article is published, wherein,
false imputations are made against the complainant. The
complainant also relied upon the evidence of PWs.2 to 5.
43. The learned counsel for the complainant in support
of his arguments, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS. UNION OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF LAW AND OTHERS in W.P.(Criminal) No.184
of 2014 reported in (2016) 7 SCC 221, wherein, the Apex
Court taken note of the offences punishable under Sections 499
and 500 of IPC and held that if it be for the public good that the
imputation should be made or published. Public good has to be
treated to be a fact. The onus of proving these two ingredients
namely., truth of the imputation and the publication of the
imputation for the public good is on the accused. Further, the
Apex Court discussed in detail Sections 499 and 500 of IPC,
regarding criminal defamation has its own independent identity
and law relating to defamation has to be understood as it stood
at the time when the Constitution came into force.
44. The other judgment referred by the learned counsel
in Sukra Mahto's case (supra), wherein the Apex Court
discussed with regard to Section 499 of IPC, Ninth Exception and
also with regard to Section 52, good faith and public good, both
have to be satisfied and degree of proof that has to be offered
by the accused.
45. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of
in the case of S.K. SUNDARAM : IN RE reported in (2001) 2
SCC 171, wherein, the Apex Court discussed with regard to
Section 52, a person casting aspersions on another held, can
claim to have acted in good faith only if before doing so, he has
made a genuine and in-depth inquiry as to the facts.
46. In keeping the principles laid down in the judgments
referred supra, this Court considered the material available on
record, whether such imputations made under Ex.P2 by the
accused is based on the prior inquiry and whether such an act is
acted in good faith and whether the accused has placed any
material before the Court to substantiate his article. The fact
that the said article published in the Kannada Journal "Parivala
Pathrike" in terms of Ex.P2, was by the accused, is not disputed.
The accused during the course of cross-examination of
complainant witnesses not took any defense that the said article
is not published by him and instead he had admitted the
document - Ex.P2 under which the imputations are made
against the complainant. The complainant also relied upon the
evidence of other witnesses - PWs.2 to 5 in support of his
contentions.
47. Before considering the evidence available on record,
this Court would like to make it clear that, though the evidence
is adduced by the complainant for the offence punishable under
Section 500 of IPC and Sections 13 and 14 of the Press and
Registration of Books Act, 1867, other than the offence under
Section 500 of IPC, the accused has been acquitted and the
same has attained its finality. Hence, the Court has to consider
the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and need not consider the evidence
of P.Ws.4 and 5 are the Tahsildar and Revenue Inspector, who
have been examined to prove the charges under Sections 13 and
14 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867.
48. Now coming to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is
concerned, P.W.1 is the complainant and P.Ws.2 and 3 are the
witnesses, who have read the article Ex.P2-Parivala Newspaper
(Magazine) and spoke about the publication. The complainant
also relied upon the documents Ex.P1-complaint, Ex.P2-News
Magazine, Ex.P3-Reply of the District Magistrate, Exs.P4 and P5-
Registered notices, Exs.P6 and P7-Letters dated 02.10.200 and
08.11.2000. Ex.P8-Copy of Declaration of accused, Exs.P9 and
P9(a) are the photograph and negative, Exs.P10 and P11-Copy
of proceedings in P.S.No.6432/2000, Exs.P12 and P13-Paper
publications, Ex.P14-Letter dated 04.07.1999, Exs.P15 and P16-
Letters dated 05.07.1997 and 06.07.1998, Ex.P17-Editorial
dated 07.07.1998, Ex.P18-Letter dated 09.07.1997, Exs.P19-
News Report dated 20.07.1998, Exs.P20 and P21-Editorial dated
10.07.1997, Exs.P22- News Report in Jana Vahini, Ex.P23-Copy
of proceedings of Director dated 30.01.1997, Ex.P24- Copy of
W.P.No.2960/1997, Ex.P25-Copy of W.A.No.224/1997, Ex.P26-
Letter, Ex.P27-Letter to Divisional Commissioner, Ex.P28-
Revenue Inspector Report and Ex.P29-Mahazar conducted by the
Revenue Inspector. The Appellate Court has also taken note of
the documents Exs.P26 to P29 and observed that, in view of not
considering the other charges against the accused, those
documents are not relevant.
49. Now, coming to the material on record, Ex.P1 is the
complaint and Ex.P2 is the publication made in Parivala
newspaper (Magazine) making defamatory per-se statement
against the complainant. Though the Trial Court discussed in
detail in the judgment regarding the exceptions are concerned,
however, considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, particularly in
respect of this charge is concerned, in paragraph No.23 comes to
the conclusion that the accused only with an intention to harm
the reputation of the complainant published the defamatory
imputations and it amounts to causing harm to the reputation of
the complainant and also comes to the conclusion that the
contents of Ex.P2 satisfies the ingredients of offence under
Section 499 read with Section 500 of IPC.
50. It is also observed by the Trial Court that the press
has great power in impressing the minds of the people and it is
essential that persons responsible for publishing anything in
newspapers should, take care before publishing which tends to
harm the reputation of a person. It is further observed that, it is
unfortunate that by ignoring a basic responsibilities of a
responsible publisher cum reporter made imputation by way of
accusation against the accused, who is a responsible IAS Officer
and the Director of P.U. Department of the State and the very
contents of Ex.P2 tarnished the image of the complainant.
Hence, convicted the accused.
51. It is also important to note that the petitions filed are
revision petitions and the scope of revision is very limited and
the Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction has to
examine whether any perverse order has been passed by the
Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court ignoring the material
available on record and also take note of the legality and
correctness of the judgment passed by both the Courts. In that
background, this Court has to consider the order of the Appellate
Court.
52. The Appellate Court, while considering the material
on record, taken note of Section 499 of IPC i.e., defamation and
its explanations in paragraph No.17 and thereafter, considered
the evidence on record. The allegations made against the
complainant are also mentioned in paragraph No.18 and
particularly considered the document Ex.P2 and in paragraph
No.21, the Appellate Court has also taken note of the title of the
questioned article Ex.P2(c) and mentioned the headlines
mentioned in the said article, wherein it is specifically mentioned
that the complainant is a corrupt and also titled as "Harish
Gowdana Pramanika Dandegalu and Dagalbaajithanagalu" and
also taken note of line of cross-examination of P.W.1, wherein
the line of defence is that the said article is published with good
faith and for the benefit of the public.
53. The Appellate Court also, having considered the
principles laid down in the judgments referred by both the
parties, observed in paragraph No.39 that the accused is a
printer, publisher and writer of Parivala fortnightly newspaper
magazine. But, the contention of the accused is that he did not
have any intention, enmity or mensrea to commit the offence
under Section 500 of IPC. It is also observed that the accused
not led in any independent evidence to prove that the same is
done with good faith and for the benefit of the public.
54. When the P.W.1 reiterated the averments of the
complaint as well as the contents of the article which is marked
as Ex.P2, nothing worthwhile is elicited in his cross-examination
and the accused also not led in any evidence to substantiate his
contention when he did not dispute the article Ex.P2 and the
Appellate Court also taken note of the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5
which has been considered by the Trial Court and comes to the
conclusion that the Trial Court has committed mistake in
considering the same and however, observed that, it does not
affect the case of the complainant and P.Ws.4 and 5 are
examined only to prove the other offence and the same is not
the subject matter of the petition. The Appellate Court also
taken note of the admission given by P.W.2 with regard to the
fact that he does not know as to whether the reputation of the
complainant was damaged or not. However, considered the
material that P.Ws.1 and 2 were cross-examined in length and
when the complainant has substantiated that the article-Ex.P2 is
per-se defamatory, the said allegation has not been
substantiated by the accused and the onus of proving the same
shifts on him when the complainant has substantiated as to the
accusation made against the accused and imputations made in
Ex.P2 is per-se defamatory and falls within the definition of
Section 499 of IPC.
55. The complainant also relied upon the evidence of
P.W.2 to establish the loss/injury to the reputation of the
complainant and so also the evidence of P.W.3, who has not
been cross-examined, inspite of sufficient opportunity being
given. The Appellate Court also, on re-appreciation of evidence
available on record, taken note of the contents of the complaint
and allegations made in the article-Ex.P2 and particularly in
paragraph No.74 taken note of the fact that the accused
circulated the questioned article in the Court premises on the
date of the examination of the complainant and also taken note
of the fact that the said article was printed and published to the
extent of 40,000 copies in paragraph No.77 and also taken note
of the conduct of the accused and the fact that the complaint
was filed in the year 2000 invoking the offence under Section
500 of IPC and not assisted the Court in cross-examining the
witnesses and also filed unnecessary applications before the Trial
Court and ultimately, he did not lead any defence evidence. The
Appellate Court has also taken note of enormous hardship,
suffering, mental agony and financial loss over a very long
period lasting nearly 17 years caused to the complainant to
establish that false utterance is made against the complainant
and also taken note of the conduct of the accused in paragraph
Nos.87 and 88 and considered the material available on record
and passed the detailed order.
56. The very contention of the learned counsel for the
accused in their petitions is that, both the Courts have
committed an error in convicting him and sentencing him for a
period of 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-. The said
contention cannot be accepted for the reason that, first of all,
the accused has not disputed the very article and the fact that
he is a printer and publisher and the same was published and
the contents of Ex.P2 is also per-se defamatory. Though
defence was taken in the cross-examination that the said article
was published with good faith and for the benefit of the public
good, in order to substantiate the same, no material is placed
before the Court. Before publishing the said article, he ought to
have made enquiry and he has also not placed any material as
to the source from which he received such information and the
article has been published on the title the complainant is a
corrupt and during the said time, admittedly, the complainant
was the Director of Pre-University Board. It is also important to
note that the complainant also substantiated his case that, in
view of the said article, his reputation was spoiled and in order
to substantiate the same, he also relied upon the evidence of
P.Ws.2 and 3 and nothing worthwhile is elicited from the mouth
of either P.W.1 or P.Ws.2 and 3. These are the aspects which
have been considered by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate
Court and the Appellate Court also discussed in detail the
evidence available on record while re-appreciating the material
on record.
57. When such being the case and when the accused has
also not led any evidence before the Trial Court to substantiate
his contention that the same was made with good faith and for
the public good, both the Courts have not committed any error
while appreciating the material on record and have given
anxious consideration to the evidence available on record.
58. It is also important to note that the complainant also
fought before the Court almost from the last two decades to
prove the fact that his reputation has been spoiled on account of
defamatory per-se allegations made against him and these
aspects are also considered by both the Trial Court as well as the
Appellate Court. When the material has been considered by the
Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and given finding on
the basis of the evidence available on record, it cannot be said
that the order passed by both the Courts are perverse and no
material on record to substantiate the same.
59. I have already pointed out that the scope of revision
is very limited and in the revision, this Court can only examine
whether the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have passed any
perverse order and if no such perversity is found in the orders
passed by both the Courts, revision cannot be entertained. With
regard to legality and correctness of the order is concerned,
nothing is found on record that both the Courts have committed
an error.
60. In the judgment of the Apex Court in Sukra
Mahto's case (supra), it is held that the accused has to prove
that the imputation is made with good faith and for the benefit of
the public good and the same has not been done by the accused.
In S.K. Sundaram's case (supra), the Apex Court has discussed
with regard to Section 52, wherein also it is observed that a
person casting aspersions on another can claim to have acted
with good faith only if before doing so, he has made a genuine
and in-depth inquiry as to the facts. But the same has not been
done and nothing is on record in the case on hand and no
document is placed as to the depth enquiry made by the accused
as to the facts which he narrated in Ex.P2. Hence, both the
judgments are applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
61. In the judgment of Subramanian Swamy's case
(supra), the Apex Court has held that the onus of proving these
two ingredients, namely, truth of the imputation and the
publication of the imputation for the public good, is on the
accused and the same has not been discharged by the accused.
62. When such being the case, I do not find any error
committed by both the Courts in considering the material on
record. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the revisional
jurisdiction to set aside the judgment of the Trial Court as well
as the Appellate Court in convicting the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 500 of IPC.
63. With regard to the sentence part is also concerned, I
have already pointed out while answering point for consideration
that no appeal lies against the inadequate sentence and no such
statutory provision is available in the Code and the Trial Court
has convicted and sentenced the accused for a period of 6
months. Taking note of the imputations made in the article
Ex.P2 which is per-se defamatory defaming the name of the
complainant which was made with an intention to defame the
complainant, the sentence imposed is actually on the lower side.
Though the Appellate Court enhanced the sentence from 6
months to 9 months and in view of the fact that no such statute
to file any appeal by the victim, I have already pointed out that
the said order passed by the Appellate Court is erroneous and no
interference is called for against the conviction for a period of six
months against the accused, since article published by the
accused is per-se defamatory done with an intention to defame
the complainant, who is the IAS Officer and during the said time,
he was also heading the Pre-University Board as a Director.
64. With regard to the sentence passed by the Appellate
Court setting aside the portion of the order of the Trial Court
imposing fine of Rs.25,000/-, reduced the same to Rs.10,000/-
exercising the powers taking note of the fact that the Magistrate
has no power to impose fine more than Rs.10,000/-. The
Appellate Court also exercised its powers to set right the error
committed by the Trial Court. Hence, I do not find any reason to
even reduce the sentence and the complainant also, in order to
protect his reputation on account of this false allegation made
against him fought tooth and nail from the last two decades.
Hence, no grounds are made out even to interfere with regard to
the sentence is concerned. Therefore, I answer point No.(iii) as
'negative' that both the Courts have not committed any error in
convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 500 of IPC, except an error in enhancing the
sentence from 6 months to 9 months by the Appellate Court, in
view of no such statute to enhance the sentence or otherwise,
no error on the part of the Appellate Court.
Point No.(iv)
65. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The revision petition filed by the complainant for
enhancement of sentence in Crl.R.P.No.175/2021 is
dismissed.
(ii) The revision petition filed by the accused in
Crl.R.P.No.550/2020 is allowed setting aside the
judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru in Crl.A.No.1353/2017 dated 07.07.2020
enhancing the sentence from 6 months to 9 months.
(iii) The revision filed by the accused in
Crl.R.P.No.552/2020 questioning the conviction and
sentence passed by the by the LXVI Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in
Crl.A.No.1600/2017 dated 07.07.2020 confirming
the conviction with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default
of payment of fine amount, to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 3 months is dismissed.
The conviction passed by the V Additional CMM at
Bengaluru in C.C.No.20643/2000 dated 30.08.2017
is confirmed i.e., the accused to undergo
imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay
fine of Rs.10,000/- is confirmed which is modified by
the Appellate Court.
(iv) The Registry is directed to send the Trial Court
Records and Appellate Court records forthwith.
(v) The Registry is directed to send this copy of the
judgment to the Ministry of justice to examine and
do the needful, as observed in the judgment while
answering point Nos.(i) and (ii) regarding anomaly in
the statute to set right the right of appeal to the
victim for necessary amendment to provide right of
appeal to the victim for enhancement of sentence.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST/cp*
