IMPORTANT POINT
In defamation cases, while exact words need not be pleaded, the statements must sufficiently suggest defamatory implications, and the presumption of innocence remains unless the trial court's findings are perverse.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Shri.Prashant Gurav for the Applicant and learned - Complainant and Respondent Shri.Sudhakar Suradkar -Respondent No.2 -In Person and learned APP Shri.H.J.Dedhia for Respondent No.1-State.

2. The Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 61st Court, Kurla, Mumbai as per the judgment dtd. 9/1/2018 was pleased to acquit the Respondent No.2 - Sudhakar Suradkar for the offence punishable under Sec. 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC"]. The present Applicant is the Original-Complainant and he wants to challenge the correctness of the judgment and that is why, Special Leave is sought. So, the issue involved at present stage is whether Special Leave can be granted or not.

3. The law on this point is well settled. It is true that scope of an enquiry for grant of Special Leave and scope of an enquiry when the Appeal is finally heard after admission are different. When the Appeal is finally heard after admission, the Court is supposed to go into deeper enquiry on the basis of available evidence as to ascertain whether interference in the judgment is warranted or not. That exercise is supposed to be done after considering the accepted principles of the Evidence Act, 1872, the substantial provisions and the pronouncements made by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Scope of enquiry

4. However, this deeper enquiry is not expected when prayer for Special Leave is to be considered. So, what is expected is whether there is manifest error in the findings recorded by the trial Court, whether the conclusion is arrived at by total disregard to the principles of appreciation of evidence and whether the evidence adduced on record was neglected or omitted. Keeping these principles in mind, I have perused the record. Submissions for Applicant / Complainant

5. According to learned Advocate Shri.Prashant Gurav, it is not necessary that actual defamatory words has to be mentioned. What is expected is the Complainant must mention those words which suggest of defamatory allegations. He wants to suggest that each and every word uttered by the Respondent No.2 need not be mentioned and need not be deposed. Ultimately, after considering those words, the Court has to draw an inference whether in nutshell they can be considered to be defamatory allegations. Judgments relied upon by Applicant

6. In support of the said contention, he relied upon the following two judgments :-

(i) Balraj Khanna and others V/s. Moti Ram, AIR 1971 SUPREME COURT 1389.

(ii) Pyarelal Maganlal Jaiswal V/s. State of Maharashtra and others, 1996 CRI. L. J. 989.

7. I have perused the observations therein. The material observation is in Para No.26 of Balraj Khanna (supra) judgment. It is observed :-

".....The actual words used or the statements made may be reproduced verbatim by the complainant and if the words are few and statement is very brief. But, in cases where the words spoken are too many or the statements made are too long, in our opinion, it will be the height of technicality to insist that the actual words and the entire statements should be reproduced verbatim. The object of having, if possible, the actual words or the statements before the Court is to enable it to consider whether those words or the statements are defamatory in nature".

8. The said ratio is reiterated in a judgment in case of Pyarelal (supra). That was an Appeal against the acquittal by the trial Magistrate for the offence punishable under Sec. 500 of IPC. Four witnesses were examined by the Complainant. Trial Court noticed variance in their testimonies. When the matter reaches to this Court, the evidence was appreciated. In that case, presence of the Accused was not disputed. It is observed that "the trial Court acted on the height of technicality in rejecting their testimonies". The Accused uttered in that meeting that the Complainant and one Sahebrao Wani do not care for leaders and for their work they offer money to the officers and Sahebs and they are corrupt perso