Girish Bansal vs

Ram Prasanna Sharma, J

Heard on application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of leave to appeal.

This petition has been preferred against judgment dated 19.8.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (CG) in Complaint Case

No.1236609/2013 wherein the said Court acquitted the respondent for the charge under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent under Section 500 IPC for publishing false imputation against him in a daily newspaper

Patrika on 09.6.2013 stating that the petitioner is engaged in malpractice of black marketing of gas cylinders and as a result, there is shortage of gas

cylinders for genuine consumers. On publication of false imputation, the complainant issued legal notice through his advocate on 21.6.2013 and

thereafter complaint was filed before the trial Court which resulted into acquittal.

The complainant side adduced evidence of Girish Bansal (PW-1), Mohd. Ali Irani (PW-2) and Surendra Nath Tiwari (PW-3) for establishing the

charge before the trial Court. The case is based on publishing of defamatory matter in the newspaper. Publisher of the newspaper is responsible for

defamatory matter published in the said newspaper. In the present case no one examined from the complainant side to prove that it is the respondent

who provided the imputation to the newspaper for publication. In absence of evidence of any person in charge of the said newspaper it is not

established that the respondent had supplied the information for publication. Therefore, there is no evidence to connect the respondent for publication

of said matter in the newspaper.

Admittedly, the petitioner is a licensee to run the gas agency which is allotted to him by the Indian Oil Corporation. It is open for the customer to

make complaint or to make suggestion for betterment of the system of any gas agency. Case under Section 500 IPC is made out only when intention

on the part of the respondent to harm the reputation of the petitioner or knowledge or reasonable belief that imputation will harm the reputation of the

person is concerned is essential ingredient. When the petitioner is running a gas agency he is bound to hear any complaint which is made for

improvement of the system and the same cannot be termed as imputation to harm the reputation of the petitioner. The trial Court after evaluating the

entire evidence recorded finding that intention or knowledge to harm reputation of the petitioner is absent in the present case. After reassessing the

evidence, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a case where the respondent should be called for full consideration of the petition. It is also not a

case where interference of this Court is required with the judgment of the trial Court.

Accordingly, present petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself.