I.D.Kaushik, HCS, S.D.O.(C) vs Gajraj Singh

Harphul Singh Brar, J.

Gajraj Singh, respondent, was summoned for an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC on a complaint filed by I.D. Kaushik, HCS, SDO (C), Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak under Sections 499/500 IPC. After going through the evidence on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak vide its order dated 8.6.84 acquitted Gajraj Singh, respondent, as, according to him, the complainant had failed to prove an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC against the accused beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. Hence this Appeal.

Briefly stated facts are that Gajraj Singh, respondent, was posted as Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Bahadurgarh in December, 1977 whereas I.D. Kaushik, complainant was posted as SDO (C), Bahadurgarh. Gajraj Singh, respondent, was under administrative control of the complainant. The complainant found the work and conduct of Gajraj Singh unsatisfactory and hence he reported the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak and other high authorities when Gajraj Singh was transferred to Hathin, District Gurgaon as Block Development and Panchayat Officer in March 1978.

Gajraj Singh, respondent, had written a letter levelling some charges against the complainant which are reproduced as under :

"You had been receiving illegal gratifications at Palwal through a very refined source i.e. Food & Supplies Inspector, Palwal Mr. Arora and still your whole family expenditure is fed by the A.D.I.O., Bahadurgarh."

It was alleged in the complaint that the above said charges/imputations were false and baseless to the knowledge of the complainant. Copies of the said letter were sent by Gajraj Singh to the Chief Secretary to Government Haryana, Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Deputy Commissioners of Rohtak and Gurgaon which had lowered the prestige of the complainant in the eyes of the higher authorities and the public. Hence, respondent, Gajraj Singh was liable to be convicted under Sections 499/500 IPC.

In preliminary evidence, statement of the complainant was recorded and Gajraj Singh, respondent, was summoned as an accused for an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC vide order dated 22.5.78. In response to the summons issued, Gajraj Singh appeared as an accused. Notice of allegations was given to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The complainant in order to substantiate his allegations examined Y.P. Dhawan, District Industries Officer as PW.1, K.C. Arora, Food and Civil Supplies Officer as P.W.2, Ram Kishan, Clerk of D.C. Office as P.W.3 and Mahabir Singh another Clerk as PW.4. The complainant appeared as his own witness as PW.5 and reiterated his allegations made in the complaint.

Statement of the accused Gajraj Singh under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied the version of the complainant and his witnesses and pleaded innocence. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he stated that the letter in dispute was written by him in good faith in pursuance of his official duties and hence no offence was committed by him. He closed his defence evidence without examining any witness.

The learned trial court has acquitted Gajraj Singh on the following grounds :

(i) Letter Ex.PW.4/A was written by the accused in discharge of his official duties in reply to an explanation to adverse remarks given in the ACR by the complainant. As per the own case of the complainant, the matter came to the knowledge of the higher authorities even to the Chief Secretary. Hence the complainant should have sought permission from the State Government for launching the complaint as required under Section 197 Cr.P.C. which provided that no court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties except with the previous sanction of the State Government. It was, thus, held by the learned trial Court that as no previous sanction of the State Government was obtained by the complainant before a launching the complaint. Thus cognizance of said offence is barred under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

(ii) Letter Ex.PW.4/A was not made public by the accused as he had sent copies of the said letter to the higher officers only. It was for the higher officers under whom the complainant and the accused were working as subordinates, to take any disciplinary action under the provisions of Punjab Civil Service Rules, if so desired. Nothing has come in evidence as to whether any action was taken against the complainant by the high authorities on the basis of letter Ex.PW.4/A written by the accused. It is also not in evidence as to whether any enquiry was conducted regarding the allegations made in the said letter Ex.PW.4/A by the high authorities or not and as to whether the allegations made in the letter in question were found to be false. Writing of letter, Ex.PW.4/A by the accused to the higher authorities at the most can be termed as an act of misconduct and indiscipline as defined in Punjab Civil Services Rules and it was for the higher authorities only to whom the copies of letter were sent to take any disciplinary action after holding an enquiry.

(iii) No witness has been examined by the complainant who might have read the said letter and in whose eyes the prestige and the character of the complainant might have been lowered. None of the superior officers to whom copy of the said letter was addressed by the accused has appeared as witness; nor any person was examined to depose to the effect that he had read the said letter and the prestige of the complainant was lowered to his estimation.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance.

We find that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, has taken a wholly erroneous view while acquitting the accused of the charge framed against him. Undisputedly, letter Ex.PW.4/A written by respondent, Gajraj Singh, to the complainant, copies of which were sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government Haryana, Financial Commissioner, Haryana and to the Deputy Commissioners of Rohtak and Bahadurgarh has been proved on the file as Ex.PW.4/A. PW.4, Mahabir, Development Assistant, D.C. Office has proved this letter. He has deposed at the trial as under :

"A letter marked as pages from 10 to 12 dated 10.4.78 was received from Gajraj Singh, B.D. & P.O. Hathin, District Gurgaon on 18.4.78. Its original is Ex.PW.4/A. It is correct. It bears the signatures of Shri S.P. Mittal. I have been his Ahmad. It also bears the signatures of A.G.A. Thakar Bir Singh. One more officer also put his signatures on it."

This letter has been proved by the complainant himself while deposing as PW5 in Court and his statement regarding the same at the trial has not been rebutted by the accusedrespondent. Even in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused has not denied writing and sending the letter Ex.PW4/A to the complainant alongwith the copies to the different higher officers as mentioned above. A question was put to the accusedrespondent in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about writing the letter. For sake of reference the question along with the answer given by the accused is reproduced as under :

Q. It is in evidence against you that you had written a letter Ex.PW4/A from Hathin. In which you had mentioned that the I.D. Kaushik used to take illegal gratification through Mr. Arora and Mr. Dhawan used to bear his household expenditure. As a result whereof it had a great set back on the reputation of the complainant. The statement of PW1 Y.P. Dhawan, PW2 K.G. Arora and PW5 Shri I.D. Kaushik Made it evident. What have you to say ?"

"Ans. It is wrong that it had affected his reputation, I had written a letter with good faith in the official capacity. I had discharged my duty."

The release of the letter Ex.PW4/A by Gajraj Singh respondent, thus, stands proved on the record. It is also proved that its copies were sent to the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Haryana, Chandigarh, Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, for information and obviously this letter was dealt with at various levels in different offices of the Government of Haryana.

Even the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, admits the publication of this letter while holding that when it had reached the higher authorities it was for them to take the disciplinary action against the accused under Punjab Civil Service Rules and that is why the learned trial Court had ruled that in these circumstances when the contents of the letter Ex.PW4/A were disclosed to the higher authorities the complainant should have obtained sanction of the State Government as provide under Section 197 Cr.P.C. before filing the complaint and that is why ultimately the complaint was rejected for non compliance of Section 197 Cr.P.C.

We do not subscribe to the view of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that the letter Ex.PW4/A was written by the respondent in his official capacity. This letter was written by Gajraj Singh respondent to I.D. Kaushik the complainant along with its copies to the higher officers. This letter cannot be considered as a representation to the higher authorities for expulsion of adverse remarks given by the complainant to the respondent. This is not even the case of the respondent. The respondent admits the issuance of this letter Ex.PW4/A and has laid emphasis till the last that he rightly issued that letter. The contents of the letter which have been reproduced above and the publication of which is proved on the record, certainly contain the material casting such an imputation which shall harm the reputation of the complainant. When any person 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 reasons to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person. The case of respondent does not fall under any exception of Section 499 IPC. It is, thus, amply proved on the record that the letter written by the respondent was not a letter written in his official capacity to the complainant or to the higher authorities. It was rather written/published by him to harm the reputation of the complainant.

In these circumstances, we accept this appeal and set aside the judgment of acquittal of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 8.6.1984 and hereby convict the accusedrespondent under Section 499 IPC.

The learned counsel for the respondent Gajraj Singh has been heard on the question of sentence. He submits that the respondent has retired since long and the complaint also pertains to the year 1978. He, thus, submits that the respondent may be released on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

We find the request of the counsel as reasonable. The complaint in this case is dated 19.5.78 and the respondent was acquitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 8.6.1984. Respondent has also since retired. In these circumstances, we feel that the ends of justice shall be met if the respondent is released on probation of good conduct. The respondent is, therefore, ordered to be released on probation of good conduct for one year. He shall furnish a personal bond before the District Magistrate of the District in which he lives and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. He is further directed to pay Rs. 500/ as compensation to the complainant. Personal bond and amount of compensation of Rs. 500/ be furnished/paid within three months from today.