- (1.) Respondent No. 1 had faced trial in a complaint filed by the applicant under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC'). The case of the applicant in brief was that he was working as Administrative Officer in the office of District Education Officer (Secondary), Jalandhar. Respondent No. 1 was working as a Social Studies Master in Government Senior Secondary School, Lamba Pind, Jalandhar. Respondent No. 1 had been publishing defamatory material against the applicant.
(2.) Applicant led his evidence in support of his case. The trial Court vide order dated 05.08.2013 ordered the acquittal of respondent No. 1. Hence the present application for leave to appeal under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the complainant.
(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the applicant, I am of the opinion that the present application deserves to be dismissed. Learned trial court while recording the finding of acquittal of respondent No. 1 has held as under:- "15. A careful perusal of the case file as well as documents produced on record by the complainant shows that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt. The documents relied upon by the complainant as Ex. CW1/A, which is affidavit of compromise is not a defamatory document. Ex. CW1/B bears no signature of the accused or has not been attested by any authority. Ex. CW1/C bears no date and there is no name of the complainant on the same and the same has not been addressed to the complainant. Similarly Ex. CW1/D does not bear the signatures of any person and there is no name of the complainant. Further on Ex. CW1/E there is no name of the complainant. Ex. CW1/F is a letter in official capacity to the concerned authority. Similarly Ex. CW1/G is letter to Deputy Commissioner in official capacity and Ex. CW1/H to Ex. CW1/K are also letters and are findings of the Enquiry Officers, which are not defamatory at all. Similarly the documents from CW1/L to Ex. CW1/O are not in any manner defamatory. So, the evidence of CW-1 Chotte Lal is not helpful for the case of the complainant as the said witness has produced the record regarding the documents Ex. CW1/A to Ex. CW1/O and as discussed above from the above said documents the guilt of the accused is not established, as no defamation of the complainant is proved. 16. Further the document Ex. CW2/A is without any date. It cannot be said that when the same was got published. Document Ex. CW3/C and Ex. CW3/D are of 03.05.2009 i.e. after the filing of the complaint and the same cannot be taken into consideration. Similarly documents Ex. CW2/H is dated 28.02.2009, Ex. CW2/J is of 20.02.2009, Ex. CW2/K is of 25.08.2008. So, all these documents are after the date of filing of the present case, which cannot be taken into consideration. Similarly document Ex. CW2/O is after the filing of the present complaint i.e. of 21.11.2008. 17. Further as regards the documents produced on file with the identification of CW Hardial Singh which are exhibited as Ex. CW2/A to Ex. CW2/O are not helpful to the case of the complainant, because as per the version of this witness he retired from the service in the year 2001 and as per his version the accused used to circulate defamatory posters against the complainant and other officers in his office when the said witness was in service. So obviously as per the statement of said witness no defamatory document has been published in his presence after the year 2001 and the present complaint has been filed on 04.12.2007 i.e. after six years of the retirement of said witness and document relied upon in the complaint as per the version of the complainant has been published in the year 2007. So, the said witness cannot be said to have witnessed the publication of such document in the year 2007. So, the evidence of this witness is also not helpful for the case of the complainant. 18. Further the main documents which remain to be discussed and upon which case of the complainant is mainly based is Ex. CW2/B and Ex. CW2/I. But, with regard to these documents, it is pertinent to mention here that both these documents have not been proved by the complainant as per Law of Evidence. The complainant has placed on record the photocopies of the said documents and the original have not been produced by the complainant, nor the same have been summoned from any record by the complainant. It means the complainant has withheld the original of these two documents. If, the complainant would have produced the original of these documents then the accused might have been an opportunity to get compare his signatures from the same. Further the complainant has exhibited the said documents without proving them as per law and the Law is well settled that mere exhibited the documents does not dispense with the prove of the same. 19. Secondly the complainant has not examined even a single witness who could have stated that the said two documents i.e. Ex. CW2/B and Ex. CW2/I have been circulated to him or her and the same has lowered the reputation of the complainant in their eyes, which is a necessary ingredient of Law of Defamation as provided under Section 499 of IPC, which provides as follows:- 499. Defamation- Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected to defame that person. 20. As per Section 499 of IPC the publication of defamatory matter is a necessary ingredient for the commission of offence of defamation, but in the present case as discussed above the complainant failed to prove the publication before others of the said two documents i.e. Ex. CW2/B and Ex. CW2/I. So, the complainant has miserably failed to prove on record that the said documents and posters were being published by the accused present in the court and further he has also failed to prove on record that the same has been lowered his reputation in the eyes of others. So, the offence under Section 500, IPC, is not made out against the accused.";