Cognizance in defamation cases must adhere to the statutory limitations; taking cognizance after a lengthy delay without valid justification renders the conviction void.

ORDER

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.12.2016 in C.C.No.3490/2008 passed by the J.M.F.C. (II Court), Mangaluru and its confirmation judgment and order dated 18.12.2017 in Crl.A.No.20/2017 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioner / accused is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 500 , 501 and 502 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The rank of the parties in the Trial Court will be considered henceforth for convenience.

Brief facts of the case:

3. It is the case of the prosecution that, the complainant was an Arabic Teacher at various madarasas i.e., Malali, Kemmara of Uppinangady etc. He was working as a Qatib of various Jumma Masjids. The complainant hailed from a very respectable family and he did not have any criminal background and did not have any personal blemish in his life.The accused being the Editor of a fortnightly magazine namely ‘Pattanga’ published a defamatory article against the complainant stating that the ‘Satanic Chronicle of Mylar Ismail of Arkana’. It is further stated that the said statement published in the magazine which defamed the dignity of the complainant and his family members in the public view and people started enquiring him about the article published in the magazine which became ridiculous. Therefore, a complaint came to be registered by the complainant.

4. The Trial Court after taking cognizance, recorded the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and got marked six documents as Exhibits P1 to P6 and recorded the conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 500 , 501 and 502 of IPC. The Appellate Court on appeal being filed, after having re- appreciated the facts and evidence dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction. Hence this revision petition.

5. Heard Shri Nithin R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sachin.B.S., learned counsel for the respondent.

6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court are required to be set aside as the concurrent findings are perverse, illegal and opposed to facts and law.

7. It is further submitted that there is an inordinate delay in filing the PCR i.e., delay of 2 years 9 months which is fatal to the case of the complainant. However, the Trial Court did not consider the said delay and proceeded to take cognizance and recorded the conviction which is not proper.

8. It is further submitted that the cognizance taken after seven years from the date of institution of complaint which is contrary to the facts and also contrary to the settled principles of law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRADEED S WODEYAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1. 9. It is further submitted that as per the order of the Press Council of India (Ex.P5), the accused published Ex.P6 in order to clarify the said publication, however, the complainant filed a complaint with an ulterior motive in order to harass the accused. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 ought not to have been considered for the reason that they are not only the interested witnesses, but also their statements are contrary to the documents on record.

10. It is further submitted that the Courts below ought to have considered the legal aspects which are required to be considered as mandatory while appreciating the evidence on record. Having failed to consider the same, res