DEEPCHAND Vs. SAMPATHRAJ
LAWS(KAR)-1969-3-8
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on March 24,1969

DEEPCHAND Appellant
VERSUS
SAMPATHRAJ Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PALANIAPPA CHETTIAR V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
HARBHAJAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
AYEASHA BI VS. PEERKHAN SAHIB [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

PRAKASH RAJARAM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1974-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
PRASHANT MAHESHBHAI PANDYA & ORS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-9-99] [REFERRED TO]
KRUSHNA KUMAR MODI VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [LAWS(ORI)-1975-2-9] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ABDUL KADAR BALASAHEB SOUDAGAR [LAWS(BOM)-1976-1-42] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The petitioner was the accused in C. C. 3227, of 1966 in the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Bangalore. The respondent herein filed a complaint against the petitioner accused for an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.)The facts leading to the complaint may be briefly stated as follows:--The complainant and the accused are both businessmen. The accused was involved in what is known as Gold Control Order case wherein the complainant was examined as a witness in support of the prosecution. During the course of cross-examination of the complainant, learned Counsel Sri Chandra Kumar who appeared for the accused in that case put the five questions mentioned in the complaint. According to the complainant, those questions were put at the instance of the accused with a view to harm the complainant's reputation and standing in the business community of Bangalore and also with intent to lower his character. He further alleged that the imputations made by the accused against him are all absolutely false and were made deliberately to damage and harm the complainant's moral, social and business reputation and the imputations conveyed by those questions are per se defamatory. Therefore the accused is liable for punishment under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.)The learned Magistrate, on the evidence adduced before him found the accused guilty of the offence and convicted him of the offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 or in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.