AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 1-9-1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund (CG) in Criminal
Complaint Case No. 1412 of 1997 wherein the said court has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 501 of IPC against the
respondents for committing defamation of the complainant by publication of defamatory news that the complainant embezzled the amount trusted to
him by respondent Naseema Khatri to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.
As per the complainant, he did not receive any amount from respondent Naseema Khatri for treatment but respondent Naseema Khatri made
publication in daily newspaper namely Dainik Bhaskar to the effect that the amount was trusted to the complainant but he embezzled the same.
Charge is based on publication in daily newspaper Dainik Bhaskar dated 2-9-1997 that the complainant embezzled an amount of Rs.5,000/- which
was sent by the respondent Naseema Khatri for treatment. The only point for consideration is whether the complainant was able to prove such
publication by any of the respondents.
To substantiate the charge, the complainant examined himself, but no one was examined from the institution of Dainik Bhaskar that the said news
was sent for publication by respondent Naseema Khatri or Lachchhiram. There is no evidence on record to say that the news was communicated to
any member of the establishment of Dainik Bhaskar by respondent Naseema Khatri or Lachchhiram. Again there is no evidence to establish that
Lachchiram was working in Dainik Bhaskar on the date of communication i.e., 2-9-1997. True it is that the news is related to respondent Naseema
Khatri, but the same is not sufficient to establish that it is Naseema Khatri who really sent such news to establishment of Dainik Bhaskar for
publication.
For commission of offence under Section 501 of IPC, it has to be established that the communication to public at large is made by person charged
with intention to bring down the reputation of the person who is alleged to have committed such breach of trust, but that is not established by any
evidence. In absence of any substantive evidence, the trial Court was not in a position to conclude any of the respondents made defamation against
the appellant. It is not a case where the trial Court recorded the finding on the basis of any irrelevant facts or extraneous matter. The finding of the
trial Court is based on relevant facts and same is not liable to be interfered while invoking jurisdiction of the appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.