RATHORE, J. - (1.) THIS Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed against the order of cognizance dated 5. 5. 2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar, in Criminal Case No. 222/2001, under Section 500 read with Section 34 IPC. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the revisional Court, by filing a revision petition, but the same was also dismissed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhalawar, vide his order dated 23. 2. 2005 confirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, this petition has been filed before this Court.
(2.) THIS petition had came up for consideration of the High Court on 7. 6. 2005. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the alleged offence is of 1. 11. 1996 and the cognizance had been taken after expiry of the period of limitation i. e. three years, as provided under Section 468 Cr. P. C. Some other grounds were also raised. In view of the said submissions, the High Court had admitted the petition, issued notices to the respondents and stayed the proceedings before the trial court. Ultimately, the same Bench, on 6. 12. 2007 had ordered that the learned counsel for the parties are directed to come prepared for final hearing of the case on 3. 1. 2008. Accordingly, the matter was finally heard by this Court on 4. 1. 2008. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant respondent No. 2 filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate on 15. 2. 1997 against the petitioner and other persons before the learned Magistrate. It is stated in the said complaint that the respondent No. 2 is serving as Development Officer in Life Insurance Corporation of India, at Jhalawar, and he holds a good reputation in the Society. It was also stated in the complaint that the petitioner, in order to defame the complainant and his family members, arranged a Press Conference and levelled allegations against them. Further more, it is stated that such allegations were got arranged for publication by two different press notes which were published in the daily News Paper "rajasthan Patrika" on 1. 11. 1996 and 6. 11. 1996. The said news was circulated, due to publication in the News Paper, through-out the State. It is also stated in the complaint that on account of said publication, the complainant suffered defamation and, as such, the persons who committed the offence are liable for prosecution and he is entitled for compensation. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate, decided to proceed further by recording the statement of the complainant under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also that of one witness namely; Rajendra Singh Jhala, under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was so done on 30. 7. 1999. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the complainant and considering the statements recorded, had ordered for taking cognizance against the accused petitioner and one Jethanand Chanchal on 5. 5. 2001 for offences under section 500 read with Section 34 IPC and process was ordered to be issued to the said persons. The petitioner then preferred a revision petition before the revisional Court, seeking to challenge the order dated 5. 5. 2001 and the same came to be heard and decided by the learned Special Judge, SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhalawar, on 23. 02. 2005, whereby he rejected the revision petition and confirmed the afore-order passed by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner, thereafter, filed this petition seeking to challenge the aforesaid orders, passed by the two Courts-below. The counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate important aspects of the matter. According to him, a perusal of the complaint shows that no offence has been committed by the petitioner. He has further submitted that the complainant has failed to controvert the contents of the news published in the News Paper which was said to be against him. It has also been submitted that even in the statements recorded by the trial Court under sections 200 Cr. P. C. , nothing has been disclosed by the complainant with regard to the basis of the Press Conference, which was got arranged by the petitioner. Consequently, it has been submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and the learned trial Court as well as the revisional Court have failed to appreciate the matter in the perspective.
(3.) IT has also been pleaded by the petitioner that both the Courts below have committed an error and acted without jurisdiction as the new items in the News Paper were published on 1. 11. 1996 as also on 6. 11. 1996 and the cognizance could have been taken only within three years. He has further submitted that the learned trial Court, without any application or prayer made by the complainant, invoked Section 473 Cr. P. C. and took cognizance against both the accused persons for the offences under section 500 read with Section 34 IPC. IT has also been submitted that neither from the complaint nor from the statements recorded by the trial Court any offence under Sections 500/34 IPC is made out. The necessary ingredients for defamation are defined under Section 499 IPC and neither the complainant nor his witnesses have prima-facie proved the facts that the complainant tried to defame the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner neither the Publisher nor the Reporter of the News Paper were examined by the trial Court before taking the cognizance. Therefore, the order of cognizance is bad in law. He has also submitted that the respondent No. 2 is a habitual offender and there are many cases pending against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized on the fact that the complaint was against five persons but cognizance had been taken only against the petitioner and the reporter. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has supported the orders passed by the two Courts below. He has submitted that there is no infirmity whatsoever in the order of cognizance dated 5. 5. 2001 passed by the learned Magistrate and the same is very much in accordance with law. He has further submitted that the complaint in the instant case was filed on 5. 2. 1997 and soon thereafter, the learned Magistrate had decided to proceed with the complaint and recorded the statements of the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. , which was done by 30. 7. 1999. Therefore, he has submitted that the order of cognizance passed on 5. 5. 2001 was very much within the prescribed time. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also perused the complaint, the statements recorded by the trial Court under section 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. and also the two orders, which are under challenge before 8 this Court. The order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate is sustainable in law but for the reasons other than the one given by him in the order dated 5. 5. 2001. He has mentioned that by exercising the powers under Section 473 Cr. P. C. for granting extension of time, while passing the order of cognizance, which he deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. This Court is of the view, that the undisputed facts of the case are that the publication of the new item in the News Paper had taken place in the month of November, 1996, therefore the complaint was filed within limitation. Apart from it, the complaint was filed on 5. 2. 1997 and the trial Court had decided to proceed to inquire in the matter and ordered to record the statements of the complainant and his witness under sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. The said statements were recorded in the month of July,1999. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate had passed the order of taking cognizance against the accused petitioner and the process was issued to the accused persons under Section 204 Cr. P. C. In such view of the matter, the order of taking cognizance was very much within the prescribed time and there was no need for granting extension of time, under Section 473 Cr. P. C. ;