BRIJ BALLABH GOYAL Vs. SATYA DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by complainant Brij Ballab against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, dated 20-3-1959.

(2.) The facts giving rise to it are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 500 I. P. C. in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bikaner, on 21-11-1958, against two persons, namely, Shri Brij Nandan Shinghai and Shri Satya Dev. The petitioner's complaint was that in June, 1958, he was Circle Manager, Bank of Bikaner. Accused No. 1, Shri Brij Nandan Shinghai, who was Internal Auditor, made a report dated 18-6-58 in respect of the complainant's work. According to the complainant, that report contained several defamatory remarks, which were made by accused No. 1 only on account of his ill-will and malice towards the complainant and that the charges, which he had levelled against the complainant, were absolutely false. It was further alleged that accused No. 1 had published the defamatory imputations made against the complainant at several public places and in the presence of several citizens. As regards accused No. 2 Shri Satya Dev, it was alleged that he was the General Manager of the Bank of Bikaner, that he knew full well that the allegations made against the petitioner by accused No. 1 were false and baseless and still in order to defame the complainant, he placed the report o accused No. 1 in a meeting of the Board of Directors where some officers of the Reserve Bank of India were also present. It was, therefore, prayed that both the accused should be convicted and sentenced under Section 500 I. P. C. The Sub Divisional Magistrate examined the complainant on oath and thereafter he ordered process to be issued only against accused No. 1. As regards accused No. 2, it was observed by him that it did not appear from the complainant's statement it he (accused No. 2) had published any imputations against him (complainant) and in his opinion, no case was made out against him. The Magistrate did not pass a clear order of discharge, but he impliedly dismissed the petitioner's complaint against accused No. 2. Aggrieved by this order, the complainant filed a revision application in the court of the Sessions Judge, Bikaner. The learned Judge also agreed with the trial court and dismissed the revision application. It is against this order dated 20-3-59 that the complainant has approached this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that accused No. 2 had certainly published the imputations made by accused No. 1 when he placed the report of accused No. 1 before the Board of Directors. It is contended that the word "publish" used in Section 499 I. P. C. means "to make known to others'' and since accused No. 2 made the defamatory report known to the Board of Directors, his action came within the purview of the said section. It is further urged that although the imputations were, in the first instance, made by accused No. 1, the repetition of the same or the publication thereof by accused No. 2 also amounted to an offence. Lastly, it has been urged that the complainant had alleged malice on the part of the accused No. 2, that this question should have been decided by the trial court only after taking evidence and therefore it is prayed that the orders of the courts below should be set aside and the Magistrate should be directed to issue process against accused No. 2 and proceed in the matter according to law.