COMMON ORDER

A. The Revision Petitions :

This Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C. No. 938 and 971 of 2014 are filed by the Accused 1 & 2 and Accused 3 & 4 respectively, aggrieved by the Judgment of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhachalam, dated 24/09/2010, in C.C.No.70 of 2006, thereby, convicting the petitioners/accused 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code and imposing a sentence of 6 months Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.750/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month and under Section 501 of Indian Penal Code and imposing a sentence of 6 months Simple Imprisonment and fine of Rs.750/- each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month and the Judgment of the Learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Virudhachalam, dated 07/08/2014 in Crl.A.Nos.115 and 120 of 2014, thereby dismissing the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial court.

B. The Case & The Trial :

2. This is a case on a private complaint by the respondent, namely Dr.N.Valluvan, filed on 06/01/2004 under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, complaining of the offence of defamation. The gist of allegations in the complainant is that the complainant was the Chairman of Virudhachalam Municipality and he conducted himself in a straightforward manner and brought out all the corruption and misdeeds of the office bearers, councilors and others and attempted to cleanse the system. Irked by the same, the four accused who are Ex-Vice-President and present councilors, printed a 4 page hand bill and titled “Perceived to be mentally affected –(Picture)- Municipal Chairman Dr.M. Valluvan” (It is mentioned in Tamil “kdepiy ghjpf;fg;gl;ljhf fUjg;gLk; (picture) jiytu; lhf;lu; K/ts;Std;) inserting his picture in between the two lines, distributed the same, which contained the above innuendo defaming his character and reputation, besides other defamatory statements. Upon complaint, the Learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statements of one Sivamoorthy on 13/02/2004, and Dr.N.Valluvan, the complainant on 13/02/2004 and one Balamurugan on 16/02/2004 and thereafter took cognizance of the offences under Sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code and issued summons to the accused. Upon appearance and being furnished with the copies as per Section 207 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied the charges and stood trial.

3. Thereafter, the complainant examined himself as PW-1, One Balamurugan as PW-2, One Sivamoorthy as PW-3, One Mappillai as PW-4, One Samuel Kennedy as PW-5 and One Murugan as PW-6. On behalf of the complainant, the handbill, regarding the complainants protest was marked as Ex.P-1; the offending handbill, printed and distributed by the accused, as Ex.P-2; the legal notice, caused by the complainant to the accused as Ex.P-3; the reply notice issued by the accused as Ex.P-4; the rejoinder notice, issued by the complainant, as Ex.P-5 and the news item in Tamizhan Express as Ex.P-6.

4. Upon being questioned about the adverse evidence and circumstances on record, as per Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. The Trial Court proceeded to hear the Learned Counsel on either side and by Judgment, dated 24/09/2010, found that from the evidence of PW-1 to PW-6, the heading of the handbill itself was an innuendo hurled with a malafide intent of bringing down the reputation of the complainant and rejected the defence contention that the complainant has not proved that it is only the accused who had printed and distributed Ex.P-2 handbill by reading of Ex.P-4 reply notice caused by them holding that the same amounted to tacit admission of their printing and distributing the Ex.P-2 offensive handbill. Therefore, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the offenses punishable under Sections 500 & 501 o