- (1.) R. K. Rastogi, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the revisionists as well as the learned A. G. A. for the State and perused the record.
(2.) THIS is a revision against the judgment and order dated 29-7- 1986 passed by Sri V. S. Kulshrestha, then Sessions Judge, Etawah in Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1985, Yash Pratap Singh Bhadauria and Anr. v. State of U. P. and Anr. , Crl. Appeal No. 110 of 1985, Gajendra Misra and Anr. v. State and Criminal Revision No. 171 of 1985, Rajiv Tripathi Advocate v. Gajendra Misra and Ors. . The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that the complainant Rajiv Tripathi filed a complaint against the accused Gajendra Misra, Ravindra Nath Bhateley, Yash Pratap Singh Bhadauria, Shailendra Singh Rathaur and Kishan Lal Jain under Sections 500, 501 and 502 I. P. C. with these allegations that in the weekly local newspaper a news was published that the wife of the complainant had eloped with his nephew. Accused Gajendra Misra was the Chief Editor, Yash Pratap Singh Bhadauria was the Editor, Ravindra Nath Bhateley was owner, Shailendra Singh Rathor was the Circulation Manager of the news paper and Kishan Lal Jain was owner of the Press where the aforesaid news paper was published. This news item was false and had been published to defame the complainant Rajeev Tripathi Advocate with an object that he may not do legal pairvi of Criminal Case No. 318 of 1982, Om Prakash v. Gajendra Misra, on behalf of complainant Om Prakash. The accused appeared in that case and after trial of the case the learned Magistrate came to a conclusion that the charges under Sections 500 and 502 I. P. C. were proved against Gajendra Misra and Shailendra Singh Rathor and charges under Sections 500 and 501 were sufficiently proved against Ravindra Nath Bhateley and charge under Section 500 I. P. C. was proved against Yash Pratap Singh Bhadauria and Kishan Lal Jain. He, therefore, convicted Gajendra Misra and Shailendra Singh Rathor under Sections 500 and 502 I. P. C. and sentenced them to six months' S. I. for each of the offences and also imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- on each of them and it was further provided that in case of default of payment of fine they shall have to undergo simple imprisonment of three months more. Ravindra Nath Bhateley was convicted under Sections 500 and 501 I. P. C. and he was sentenced to 6 month's S. I. for each of the offences and was also sentenced to fine of Rs. 500/- with a provision that in case of default in payment of fine he will have to undergo three months' further simple imprisonment. Yash Pratap Singh Bhadauria and Kishan Lal Jain were convicted under Section 500 I. P. C. and sentenced to six months' S. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- each and it was provided that in case of default in payment of fine, they will have to undergo further simple imprisonment of 3 months. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and order accused Yash Pratap Singh Bhadauria and Shailendra Singh Rathor filed criminal appeal No. 107 of 1985, Gajendra Misra and Ravindra Nath Bhateley filed Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 1985. The complainant Rajeev Tripathi being dis-satisfied with the quantum of punishment filed criminal revision No. 171 of 1985.
(3.) THE aforesaid appeals and revision were heard and decided by Sri V. S. Kulshrestha vide his judgment and order dated 29- 7-1986. He dismissed the aforesaid criminal revision, and the criminal appeals were partly allowed. He maintained the conviction of the appellants but suspended the order of sentence of imprisonment against them and they were given benefit of provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders' Act, 1958. Accordingly they were directed to furnish personal bond of Rs. 7,000/- each and two different local sureties for the same amount for keeping peace for a period of one year and being of good behaviour during this period and it was provided that the accused be released on executing these personal bonds and surety bonds of good conduct. THE order of fine imposing upon them was confirmed and they were given seven days' time to deposit the fine and it was provided that in case of default in payment of fine, they shall have to undergo imprisonment as awarded by the trial Court. It was further provided that out of the amount of fine, a sum of Rs. 300/- each would be paid from each item of the fine to the complainant as compensation and the remaining amount of fine shall remain deposited in the Government Treasury. Aggrieved with this judgment and order Yash Pratap Singh Bhadauria and Shailendra Singh Rathor have filed this revision. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.;