Subhakar Dubey vs State of U.P. and Ram Adhar Yadav, Inspector

S.N.H. Zaidi, J.—Both these revisions have been directed against the judgment and order dated 02.12.1985 passed by 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi in connected criminal appeals Nos. 149/84 and 161/1984.

Necessary facts which gave rise to these revisions, in brief, are that opposite party No. 2 Ram Adhar Yadav, the then Inspector of police station Cantt., Varanasi filed a complaint case u/s 500 and 120B I.P.C. in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi against five persons; namely, Anand Bahadur Singh (Editor), Veer Bhadra Mishra (printer and publisher), Subhakar Dubey, Nirankar Singh and Hari Shanker Pandey (Correspondents) of Hindi daily newspaper ''Sanmarg'' for publishing a defamatory article against him in the newspaper on 28.08.1979. The Magistrate, after inquiry, took cognizance on the complaint and summoned the accused persons for trial. The complaint case was tried by the Corporation Magistrate, Varanasi and by the judgment and order dated 14.06.1984, accused Nirankar Singh has been acquitted and all the remaining four accused were convicted u/s 500 I.P.C. and sentenced to fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, for simple imprisonment of three months. Against the judgment and order of the Magistrate, Criminal Appeal No. 149/1984 was filed by Anand Bahadur Singh, Veer Bhadra Mishra and Hari Shankar Pandey whereas Criminal Appeal No. 161/1984 was filed by Subhakar Dubey. Both the appeals were jointly heard and decided by the lower appellant court. Criminal Appeal No. 149/84 was partly allowed and the conviction and sentence of Veer Bhadra Mishra was set aside and was dismissed in respect of the remaining appellants. Criminal appeal No. 161/84 was also dismissed. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order of the lower appellant court these revisions have been filed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for revisionist Subhakar Dubey ana the learned AGA for the State as none appeared for revisionist Anand Bahadur Singh and Hari Shankar Pandey and perused the material on record.

From the perusal of the record it is sufficiently clear that the factum of publication of allegedly defamatory article in newspaper ''Sanmarg'' on 28.08.1979 was not disputed by the revisionists during the trial of the case. The published news item was below:

xksiuh; lw=ks ls irk pyk gS fd dS.V baLisDVj Jh jkev/kkj ;kno dks pankSyh lalnh; {ks= dh pquko dk iwjh O;oLFkk �lapkyu� djus dh ftEesnkjh Jh ujflag ;kno] dsfUnz; lapkj jkT; ea=h us lqiqnZ dh gS A blh dkj.k Jh jkevk/kkj ;kno dh iqu% fu;qfDr dS.V Fkkus ij dj nh gS A dgk tkrk gS fd dS.V baLisDVj us ijlks pktZ ysrs gh {ks= ds izkbosV clks] feuh clksa] VSDlh] VSEiks ,oa vU; okgusk ij izFke pqukoh vkdze.k fd;k A blh dze esa okguks ds fy, 3 lkS :i;s ls 50 :0 ekgokj cak/kh x;h gS rFkk lHkh okguks ds ekfydks ls dgk x;k gS fd os 500 :i;s ls s A fnlEcj rd chl yk[k :i;s olwyus dh ;kstuk gS vkSj ,d ,d ernkrk dks [kjhn ysus dh rS;kjh dh tk jgh gSA

It appears that both the trial court as well as lower appellate court had found the above article/news as per se defamatory. Both the court''s below had held the revisionists responsible for the publication of the above article in the newspaper. It is not disputed that revisionists Anand Bahadur Singh was the editor and revisionist Hari Shankar Pandey was the correspondent of the newspaper. There appears to be some dispute regarding status of revisionist Subhakar Dubey. According to the complainant, Subhakar Dubey was also one of the correspondents of the newspaper whereas Subhakar Dubey had claimed himself as Assistant Teacher of the newspaper with the duty of collecting the news item from the tele printers and to send them for publication and also to check postal correspondence received in the office. Both the courts below have held Subhakar Dubey as one of the persons responsible for publication of the alleged news. After carefully perusing the impugned order I do not find any error in the finding of the lower appellate court.

It is clear that the judgment and conviction passed by the trial court and confirmed by the lower appellate court which were the courts essentially require to assess the worth of evidence, the finding of fact cannot be disturbed in exercise of revisional jurisdictional of this court under Sections 397 Cr.P.C. The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and Others, as held that the High Court cannot up set the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court which was confirmed by the appellate court.

The lower appellate court has properly discussed and appreciated the evidence produced during the trial and have come to a finding based on the proper appraisal of the evidence. No illegality or material irregularity appears to have been committed in passing the impugned judgment.

In view of above there is no force in these revisions and are accordingly dismissed.