( 1 ) THESE two appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 22. 8. 1983 passed by the additional J. M. F. C. . Tarikere, in C. C. No. 666 and 667 of 1982, respectively, whereby the Magistrate has acquitted the accused of the charge of the offence punishable under sec. 500 I PC.

( 2 ) THE appellant L. S. Jayappa being a resident of Lakkavalli in Tarikere Taluk of chikmagalur District is a licensed money lender. Accused N. S. Shamegowda and jayashankar are father and son and residents of Kenchikoppa village. In the year 1978, Jayappa had advanced a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as loan to Shamegowda. When he failed to repay the amount borrowed, jayappa brought Small Cause Suit No. 61/81 against him and obtained a decree and filed execution petition No. 12/81 and got arrested Shamegowda. But, on his undertaking to pay the amount on the next day, he was released. Thereafter, on 10-8-82, at about 12 noon, when Jayappa was standing on the pial outside his house, the accused, father and son, went upto ,his house and abused him saying "soole MAGANE courtininda N IN AGE KODABEKADA hanavannu WARRANT TARISI VASOLI madiddiya BOLI MAGANE NINNA thayina KYAYA", as a result there was lot of commotion 10 to 12 people also collected there. The P. S. I, also went there, dispersed the people. On the complaint given by him (complainant), the P. S. I, also prosecuted the two accused persons, both father and the son, for the offence punishable under Sec. 92 (0) of the Karnataka police Act. It is not disputed both the accused were tried of the said offence in c. C. 445/82 and on their pleading guilty they were also released on due admonition.

( 3 ) SINCE according to the complainant-Jayappa, the abusive words "soole magane-BOLI MAGANE" were not only defamatory, but he was also much pained due to the abusive words used by the accused and the accused were guilty of the offence punishable under S. 500 IPC, he filed a complaint before the Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, after taking cognizance of the offence alleged proceeded with the trial and on the basis of the evidence before him and having regard to the fact that the accused had also pleaded guilty in the other criminal case instituted against them thought the accused had so abused the complainant Jayappa. But, he however concluded that such abusive words "soole MAGANE - BOLI MAGANE" are commonly used by the villagers and, therefore, they could neither be regarded as defamatory nor they were used with' such intention to defame him (complainant ). In that view, he having acquitted the two accused-respondents in these appeals, the complainant Jayappa has filed this appeal.

( 4 ) MR. Kadidal Manjappa, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, vehemently argued not only the abusive words used by the accused were per se defamatory, but having regard to the background under which the accused went upto the house of the complainant Jayappa and abused him showed their intention was to defame and bring him in disrepute and the learned magistrate was not justified in acquitting the accused. In support of his contention, he also placed reliance on some decisions of this Court as also decisions of other high Courts.

( 5 ) MR. Ravivarma Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, argued supporting the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate that apart from the fact that the say of the complainant the two accused had abused him using particular abusive words, as stated by him in the complaint and sworn to by him in his evidence, appears to be artificial in as much as they could not be expected to use the same abusive words simulteneously in a chorus; however vituperative the words used, the abuses by themselves cannot constitute an offence of defamation unless it is proved that the accused used those abusive words with such intention of defaming the person abused. In support of his contention, he also placed reliance on some decisio