H PARVATHAMMA HIREMATH Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for decision in this revision petition is, whether a Sessions Judge acts illegally if he accepts the express acquiescence of the accused appellant in the Order of conviction appealed against, while disposing of an appeal under S. 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

(2.) The circumstances under which the contention has been raised are not in dispute. The petitioner Smt. Parvathama Hiremath is the Publisher, Printer and Editor of a Kannada Weekly newspaper by name 'Veeramathe'. In the issue dated 26-1-1959 she published an article against the respondent who, according to the evidence, is a reputed dealer in watcher and clocks in the City of Bangalore. The article contained serious imputations against the business-morale and integrity of the respondent. It alleged that he had been evading taxes and It alleged that he had been evading taxes and involved in fifteen cases pending against him. It concluded with an announcement that 'Veeramathe' had appointed her own C.I.D. to investigate how the respondent had amassed huge fortune. The latter filed a complaint in the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Bangalore charging the petitioner with an offence punishable under S. 501 of the Indian Penal Code. At the trial, the petitioner claimed that the article was only a fair comment on the complaints received by her from the public against the respondent (complainant) and that it had been published in good faith for public good. After a careful consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties and the authorities cited for them, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the imputations "are per se defamatory" and "cannot be justified on any ground." He further concluded that "the accused had not exercised due care and caution" and that the use of the "the wild and unrestrained language x x x x x in the way as stated in the Kannada language in the article, connotes malicious and vindictive intent." He held that she was not protected by any of the exceptions to S. 499 of the Indian Penal Code. He found her guilty of the offence punishable under S. 501 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He expressly stated that the sentence of fine world meet the ends of justice as the accused was a woman.

(3.) The Petitioner challenged the order of conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 1962 before the Sessions Judge, Bangalore, Mr. S.K. Venkataranga Iyengar was the Advocate for the appellant (Petitioner). At the hearing of the appeal on 18-1-1965, the accused and her advocate were present in Court. The former offered an unconditional apology which was not acceptable to the respondent. The Advocate confined his arguments only to a plea for mercy and the respondent's advocate and the Public Prosecutor for the State had 'no serious objection' to it. The learned Sessions Judge was 'of the opinion that having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it is expedient to release the accused-appellant on probation of good conduct and directed her to enter into a bond in a sum of Rs. 1,000 and be of good behavour during a period of one year.