Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R. C. MISHRA, J.
BABU KHAN s/o LAL KHAN – Appellant
Versus
ABDUL LATIF KHAN s/o AZIZ KHAN – Respondent
Cri. Rev. Nos. 858 and 1450 with M.Cr.C. No. 11566 of 2008
Decided On : 10-07-2012
Defamation - Indian Penal Code - Section 500, Section 193, Section 211, Section 120B - The court discussed the offenses of defamation, giving false evidence, and fabricating false evidence under the Indian Penal Code. The court also referred to the legal provisions related to immunity for persons making depositions in court and the procedure for complaints under the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a defamation complaint made by the complainant against the accused for distributing false imputations about the complainant. The accused filed a petition seeking direction to lodge a complaint against the complainant and another individual for offenses under the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the complainant and another witness supported the defamation allegations. The court also noted that the accused failed to cross-examine the witnesses and that the revisional jurisdiction could not re-appreciate evidence unless the finding of fact was illegal or perverse.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of the evidence, the maintainability of the petition seeking interference under inherent powers, and the entitlement to protection under exception 8 to section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence supported the defamation allegations, the petition seeking interference under inherent powers was not maintainable, and the accused was not entitled to protection under exception 8 to section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: Both the revisions and the petition under section 482 of the Code were dismissed with liberty to file an appeal under section 341 of the Code.
JUDGMENT :
1. These three cases are interlinked and are, therefore, being disposed of by a common order.
2. The revisions, registered as Cri. Revision Nos. 858/08 and 1450/08, are counter revisions preferred respectively by the accused namely Babu Khan (for short 'Babu') and complainant Abdul Latif Khan (for brevity 'Latif') against appellate judgment passed on 24-4-2008 by Shri Deepak Kumar Agrawal, Third Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Cri. Appeal No. 130/07, whereby Babu's conviction, under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, as recorded by Shri Vivek Sharma, JMFC, Hoshangabad vide judgment dated 6-7-2007 in Cri. Case No. 283/07 and consequent sentence of fine, were affirmed but the period of custodial sentence was reduced from 1 year to 6 months.
3. The MCrC, filed by Babu and numbered as MCrC No. 11566/08, is a petition, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), for issuance of direction to the trial Court to lodge a complaint against Latif (examined as PW1) and one Shazad Ali (PW2) in respect of the offences punishable under sections 193, 211 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
4. At the relevant point of time, Babu and Latif were residing in the same vicinity at Seoni-Malwa. The complaint of defamation was made by Latif on 12-11-1999. According to him, Babu had defamed him by distributing amongst the inhabitants of the locality including Yakub, Shahjad and Anwar and residents of the town comprising Nawab Khan, Jameel Khan and Ayub Ali, copies of the application addressed to the SHO of Police Station Seoni-Malwa and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and containing false imputations to the effect that - (i) He in association with a person, Sindhi by caste, was involved in identifying the lands left by the persons migrated to Pakistan as well as in handing over possession thereof to his associate and in the process, had earned considerable amount by way of commission. (ii) After disassociating himself from the joint venture, he started getting forest timber stolen and trees of Mango, Neem, Peepal etc. standing in the agricultural fields belonging to various persons, cut for the purpose of sale. (iii) He opened a timber mart on a land in dispute with a Mosque. (iv) While constructing house, he encroached upon a piece of land belonging to Babu's wife. (v) There were reports as to his indulgence in the communal riots that occurred in Ahmedabad in the year 1992 and during that period, had also taken precautions to conceal his presence for a long time at Seoni-Malwa. (vii) His activities gave raise to suspicion that he was involved in unlawful activities and was a member of some banned organisation.
5. Latif (PW1) reiterated the averments made in the complaint and also tendered in evidence - copies of the application containing defamatory allegations, complaint made to the SHO, notice sent to Babu and corresponding postal receipts (Ex.P/1 to P/4 respectively). His evidence drew ample support from the statement of Shazad Ali (PW2). In spite of grant of sufficient opportunities, Babu did not prefer to get them cross examined. In defence, he examined Nawab Khan (DW1) and Jameel Khan (DW3), who were cited as witnesses in the complaint, to disprove the allegations regarding distribution of copies of the application containing offending material, and Sheikh Nasir @ Chhuttu Bhaiya (DW2) to substantiate the allegation No. (i) (above). However, none of them specifically denied the factum of circulation of copies of the application containing abovementioned imputations and only pleaded ignorance.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Babu still submitted that the evidence of Latif and Shahzad was not worthy of credence as it suffered from material inconsistencies with reference to contents of their respective statements recorded under sections 200 and 202 of the Code respectively. Attention has also been invited to the following facts - (a) He had filed an application, under section
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
