N. A. BRITTO, J.

( 1 ) THESE are complainants revision applications arising from c. C. No. 284/p/2001 and against the common order of the learned Sessions judge, Margao dated 22-7-2004 in Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 63, 64, 67 and 68 2003. Hence, this common judgment.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the said criminal case put a public notice on "navhind Times" dated 13-5-2001 which reads as follows :-"notice is hereby given to the public that one Mr. Valmiki Faleiro resident of margao and others who are developing and selling the plots through their power of Attorneys, agents, etc. form the property surveyed between nos. 251 to 522 including all sub-divisions of village Cacora, taluka a Quepem are not the owners of the said property. The actual owners and the holder of the said property as well as the property surveyed under Nos. 1 to 323 including all sub-divisions of village Xeldem and parts of adjoining villages Amona, Sirvoi, Avedem, Chalfi, Assolda, cottombi, Xie Xelvon, Xelvon, Odar, Cusmane, Ambulim, Quepem and deao all taluka a Quepem are Mrs. Lauriana Fernandese Diniz, Luciana diniz and Anastasia Diniz. Public is hereby warned by this notice to refrain from purchasing the plots or not to enter into any kind of sale transaction of whatsoever nature in respect of the said property with the aforesaid persons who have no right, title to enter into sale transaction. Despite this publication of notice the public still enter into transaction of sale, then they shall do so at their own risk and consequences. Mrs. Lauriana Fernandes e Diniz, Luciana Diniz and Anastasia Diniz 12-5-2001. "

( 3 ) ACCUSED No 4 is the printer and publisher, accused No. 5 is the Editor and accused No. 6 are the owners of the aid "navhind Times".

( 4 ) THE complainant after having read the said notice filed a complaint against the aforesaid accused and accused No. 3 Anastasia Diniz whose name was subsequently deleted, under section 500 r/w section 499 I. P. C.

( 5 ) AFTER the complainant examined himself on oath and two other witnesses, the learned J. M. F. C. was pleased to issue process against the aforesaid accused and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 on or about 25-10-2002 filed an application for recalling the process issued against them and the other accused also filed separate applications. The learned J. M. F. C. by his order dated 5-9-2003 dismissed the said application, for recalling of process.

( 6 ) THE said accused filed four criminal revision applications before the learned Sessions Judge which the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to allow and set aside the order of the learned J. M. F. C. dismissing the applications of the accused, for recalling of process.

( 7 ) AS per the complainant the said notice contains imputations and allegations against the petitioner which are defamatory. As per the learned J. M. F. C. the said notice had a direct impact on the reputation and business of the said complainant. The learned J. M. F. C. was also of the opinion that accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6 had not verified the correctness of the contents of the said notice prior to its publication. The learned Sessions Judge in his impugned order expressed the view that he was unable to agree with the finding of the learned j. M. F. C. and held that there was no prima facie case made out by the complainant for the issuance of process. The learned Sessions Judge also felt that the said notice did not contain any statement which could be said to be defamatory and intended to lower the reputation of the complainant in the eyes of the public.

( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, the applications filed by the accused for recalling the process issued against them were filed prior to the decision of (Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and others), decided on 25-8-2004; 2004 (2) Bom. C. R. (Cri.) (S. C. J857 : J. T. 2004 (7) S. C. 243 wherein the Honble Supreme Court has now declared that the law laid down in the case of (KM Mathew v. State of Kerala), 1992 Cri. L. J