2004 Supreme(AP) 1303
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.S.NARAYANA
Janab Sultan Salahuddin Owaisi - Appellant
Versus
Syed Vigaruddin - Respondent
Decided On : 11-05-04
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 500 and 501 – Offence of Defamation - Demolition of Babri Mosque and reconstruction being a burning topic of Nation - Case of the appellant/complainant that the 1st respondent in this Appeal/a-2 is his opponent. It is also stated that A-1 published its issue of Nayee Dunia on 26-7-1994 and published an article alleging that the appellant/complainant, President of All India Babri Masjid Action Committee entered into criminal conspiracy in the year 1986 along with Imam and Deputy Imam of Jama-E-Masjid, Delhi. Javid Habeeb and Chandra Swamy for reconstruction of Babri Masjid at some other place after its demolition and a new Mosque Akberi Mashid at Delhi and it was also alleged that the appellant/complaint appreciated the alleged move and also had a talk with Kumara Mangalam etc – Held, Court opinion that Magistrate was well justified in arriving at a particular conclusion after recording reasons especially in view of the fact that two views are possible, one in favour of the accused and another to the contra - It is needless to say that benefit always to go in favour of the accused and not in favour of the prosecution and in the light of the limitations in interfering with an order of acquittal recorded by the Court below and the interference in relation thereto by the appellate Court, especially in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case - Court is satisfied that this case would fall under Exception 3 of Section 499 IPC involving a public question and especially in the light of the fact that Ex. P-3 is only a reproduction and the apology tendered also had been published by way of Ex. P-4, the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate cannot be fount fault and accordingly they are hereby confirmed and the benefit as usual is given to A-2 and accordingly the acquittal is hereby confirmed – Criminal Appeal dismissed.
( 2 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty. On 21-4-1997 the appellant/complainant filed an application under Section 257 Cr. P. C. praying for permission to withdraw the case as against A-1 and the said application was allowed and respondent No. 1 herein/a-2 alone was tried. P. W. 1, PW-2 and DW-1 were examined. Exs. P-1 to P7 and Exs. D-1 to D-12 were marked. The learned Magistrate after recording finding ultimately recorded acquittal and aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Appeal is preferred.
( 3 ) SRI Praveen Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the appellant/complainant would submit that the acquittal recorded cannot be sustained inasmuch as in the light of the evidence available on record. It is clear that the publication of defamatory article had been well proved and when such defamatory article had been published the burden would be on the 1st respondent/a-2 to prove that he would fall under any of the Exceptions. The Learned Counsel also would contend that the learned Magistrate erred in arriving at a conclusion that an adverse inference may have to be drawn on the non-production of the material witnesses. The Counsel also would contend that the learned Magistrate was wrong in holding that Ex. P. 3 is not per se defamatory. The Counsel also would contend that the 1st respondent/a-2 merely copied the apology letter of A-1 subsequently in Ex. P-4, which would not a