- (1.) THIS revision by the Secretary of All India Postal Employees Union, Class III. Kurnool Division is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge Kurnool in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1966 confirming the conviction of the petitioner for the offence of defamation.
(2.) THE brief and material facts that led to this revision are as follows:-The petitioner in his capacity, as the Secretary of All India Postal Employees Union, Class III, Kurnool Division submitted a memorandum to the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs against the then Superintendent of Post Offices, Kurnool for his alleged acts of omissions and commissions. Under the head "favouritism", it was mentioned about the appointment of the complainant in the following terms: The post of Wireless Inspector, Kurnool has been given temporarily to an official who has Court attachment to his salary, who is heavily indebted, who is declared unfit to work in cash counters and who is used to intemperate habits. . . . On the complaint preferred by the 1st respondent herein, the petitioner was charged for the offence of defamation. The prosecution examined P. Ws. 2 to 4, postal employees in addition to the complainant P. W. 1 and filed Exs. P. 1 to P. 3. The petitioner admitted the submission of the memorandum and the allegations made by him in his capacity as the Secretary of the Union but pleaded that he had no malice against P. W. 1, that the allegations were true and that in any event the case would fall within the Exception 8 or 9 to Section 499, I. P. C. The accused examined D. Ws. 1 to 5 and filed the documents Exs. D 1 to D-8 in support of his pleas. The trial Court found that the salary of the complainant was attached and that he was indebted, but held that the accused failed to prove the other 8 allegations and convicted the accused under Section 500, I. P. O. and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 300/. , On appeal, the Sessions Judge Kurnool confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence of fine from Rs. 300/- to Rs. 100/ -. Hence this revision.
(3.) MR. Bhujangarao, the learned Counsel for the accused urged that the Exceptions 8 and 9 to Section 499, I. P. C. are satisfied in the instant case and the petitioner is entitled (or an acquittal. Mr. Padmanabha Reddy, the learned Counsel for the complainant contended contra.;