1. These petitions are directed against the judgment dated 12.04.2001 in C.C. No. 5295/1998 passed by the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore city and the common judgment dated 19.04.2004 in Crl. Appeal Ho. .289/2001 and Crl.R.P. No. 210/2001 passed by the Fast Track Court (Sessions) Judge IV, Bangalore city.

2. Petitioners in Crl.R.P. Nos. 817/2004 and 811/2004 are the accused and the petitioner in "Crl.P. No. 2306/2004 is the complainant before the trial Court in C.C. No. 5295/1998. In this order, for convenience, the parties are referred to their status before the trial Court in C .C. No. 5295/1998.

3. Complainant filed a complaint against 4 accused alleging that accused No. 1 is the printer, publisher and editor of a weekly Kannada journal called VLANKESH PATRIKE'. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are reporters writing articles in the said journal. In the weekly journal LANKESH PATRIKE, in its editions dated 05.08.1998, 19.08.1998 and 26.08.1998, marked as Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 respectively, published articles on the complainant. According to the complainant the imputations made in these articles are malicious, false, cooked up and had caused damage to the reputation of the complainant. It is further contended that the allegations made in these articles are defamatory in nature: lowered the image of the complainant, harmed his character and reputation in the eye of public and as such the accused have committed an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC.

4. The accused entered appearance before the trial Court and contested the proceedings. Before recording the plea, accused No. 1 died and consequently proceedings came to be abated against him. Accused Nos.2 to 4 pleaded not guilty. The complainant examined 8 witnesses as P.W.I to P.W.8 and got marked Ex.P.l to Ex.P.39. The accused examined 7 witnesses as D.W.I to D.W.6 and got marked Ex.D.l to Ex.D.8.

5. The trial Court on appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence passed the impugned judgment on 12.04.2001 convicting accused Nos. 2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 500 IPC. Further- accused Nos. 2 and 4 are sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of two months. Accused No. 3 is sentenced to undergo sin-pie imprisonment for a period of three months and also pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. Aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and sentence, accused Nos.2 to 4 filed Crl.A. No. 289/2001. The complainant, being aggrieved by the inadequacy of sentence levied by the trial Court filed Crl.R.P. No. 210/2001 before the Fast Track Court, Bangalore. The lower Court after hearing arguments framed the following points for its consideration.

i. Whether the articles in question namely, Ex.P.3(a) authored by the 1st appellant, Ex.P.3(c) & Ex.P.4(b) authored by the 2nd appellant & Ex.P.4(a) authored by the 3rd appellant were published by them with an intention to harm the reputation of the complainant?

ii. Whether the appellants have committed the offence of defamation for having indulged in publication of malicious and defamatory imputations and insinuations in the articles published at Ex.P.3(aj, Ex.P.3(c)/'P.4(b) and Ex.P.4.(a)?

iii. If so, whether the sentence imposed against the appellants 1 to 3 is inadequate and not commensurate with the Offence proved against them?

iv. For what order?

6. On re-appreciation of the entire material on record the lower appellate Court passed the impugned common judgment dated 19.04.2004 dismissing the appeal filed by the accused and allowing the criminal revision petition filed by the complainant and enhanced the sentence directing accused Nos. 2 and 4 to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months. Accused No. 3 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to