Back
1980 Supreme(Bom) 206
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
S. C. PRATAP, J.
O. N. Khajuria, Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another, Opponents.
Criminal Appln. No. 485 of 1980
Decided on : 10 -9 -1980.
V. V. Kamat, for Petitioner; H. A. Solkar, Public Prosecutor, for the State.
A public notice issued by a bank warning the public against dealings with a former branch manager who had been accused of defrauding the bank is not defamatory.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUED BY BANK WARNING PUBLIC AGAINST DEALINGS WITH FORMER BRANCH MANAGER - NO DEFAMATION - PETITION ALLOWED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, the Regional Manager of Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, filed a complaint with the police alleging that respondent No. 2, the Branch Manager of the bank's Bombay branch, had defrauded the bank of over ten lakh rupees by granting unauthorized overdraft facilities to various concerns. The police investigated the complaint and filed a charge-sheet against respondent No. 2 and four others. The bank also issued a public notice warning the public against any dealings with respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint against the petitioner and other bank officials for defamation under Section 500 of the Penal Code based on the public notice. The Metropolitan Magistrate issued process against the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the public notice issued by the bank was not defamatory and that the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 was an abuse of the process of the court. The court held that the bank had acted in a justified manner by issuing the public notice and that the Metropolitan Magistrate had erred in issuing process against the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the public notice issued by the bank was defamatory.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the public notice issued by the bank was not defamatory because it was based on investigated facts and particulars and was issued in public interest and for public good. The court also held that the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 was an abuse of the process of the court.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the order directing issue of process against the petitioner and the entire proceedings in the defamation case.
2. Petitioner herein is the Regional Manager of Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, having its registered office at Residency Road, Shrinagar and its central office at Karan Nagar, Shrinagar. The said bank has its branch office at Fort Chambers, Ambalal Doshi Marg, Fort, Bombay-400 023. On June 17, 1979, the petitioner, in his capacity as the Regional Manager of the above bank, lodged a first information by written complaint addressed to the Additional Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Bombay, on the basis of which complaint, the General Branch, C.B.C.I.D., Bombay, registered, vide Crime Register No. 64 of 1979 inter alia, against respondent No. 2 herein, offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 406, 409 and 477-A read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. The said information lodged with the police was with regard to an amount of Rupees ten lacs and odd on the basis of the following particulars :
(a) The Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, a Scheduled Banking Government Company and Bankers to the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, has a branch at Bombay. The said branch is under the control of the Regional Manager, the petitioner herein, having his administrative office at Azadpur, Delhi. The Bombay Branch Office was in charge of K.K. Dhar, respondent No. 2 - accused No. 1 herein, who took charge as the Branch Manager of the Bombay branch on and from February 28, 1978.
(b) The Branch Manager was authorised overdraft facilities to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- at a time to an individual party. The Office-staff of the branch consists of the Branch Manager, Accounts Manager and clerical staff of six persons and two peon-cum-watchmen. This Bombay Branch Office was inaugurated on January 30, 1978.
(c) The Branch Manager was under obligation of duty to submit, on last Friday of each month, in the beginning of the following month, the statements of temporary overdraft facilities, granted to the individual parties.
(d) On or about November, 11, 1978, the Central Office belatedly received the statements of temporary overdraft facilities and it revealed that on August 25, 1978 the Branch Manager, respondent No. 2 herein, had allowed an overdraft facility to the tune of Rs. 2,99,999.00 to a concern in the name and style of M/s. Manju Enterprises. This was much beyond the powers of the Branch Manager. The Branch Manager, accused No. 1 - respondent No. 2 herein, was, therefore, asked to explain and the explanation was that the amount was adjusted on November 4, 1978.
(e) On scrutiny of the statement on last Friday of November 1978, it was further revealed that the Branch Manager, respondent No. 2 herein, had granted overdraft facility to the extent of Rs. 3,26,997.00 to M/s. Raj Enterprises. On January 8, 1979, on the basis of the statements received at the central office, these overdraft facilities continued to remain outstanding. It was revealed that when on November 4, 1978, M/s. Raj Enterprises was granted the overdraft facility as stated above, the amount of the overdraft facility of M/s. Manju Enterprises had been adjusted and this aroused suspicion. The Branch Manager, accused No. 1 - respondent No. 2 herein, was again asked to explain for allowing overdraft facilities without prior sanction and was further asked to give full particulars of M/s. Manju Enterprises and M/s. Raj Enterprises.
(f) It was further discovered that similar overdraft facility was granted by the Branch Manager, accused No. 1 -respondent No. 2 herein, to yet another concern in the name and style of M/s. Siddhi Enterprises and as on Dec. 30 1978, large overdraft amounts were outstanding against M/s. Siddhi Enterprises. On a telex message, the Branch Manager was asked to give all particulars aga
