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 a