Madhab Charan Dash vs Amiya Prasad Mishra

C.R. Pal, J.—This is a petition under Sub-section(4) of Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code filed by the complainant of I.C.C. N6.96 of 1993 of the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar seeking leave to appeal against the order of acquittal passed in the aforementioned complaint case acquitting the accused person from, the charge u/s 500 of the Indian Penal Code.

The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

The petitioner was the Managing Director of the Kalinga Hospital Private Limited, Bhubaneswar. The opposite party was appointed as a site Engineer under the present petitioner and as he was found unsuitable for the job, his service was terminated with effect from 22.7.1992. It is alleged that on 9.4.1993 the opposite party sent a letter without his signature to the petitioner making all sorts of imputations against the petitioner. After receiving the letter, the petitioner sent a photo copy thereof to the opposite party asking him to put his signature thereon if the same has been sent to him. The photo copy was sent by registered post on 19.4.93 and it is alleged that the opposite party sent back the photo copy of the defamatory letter with a signature. Receiving back the said copy of the letter the petitioner compared the signature with the signature of the opposite party available in his office and found that the signature was not the signature of the opposite party. On 6.5.1993 the petitioner issued a pleader''s notice to which the opposite party gave his reply through his Advocate on 10.5.93. It is alleged that the said reply also contained scurrilous remarks against the petitioner. So the petitioner filed the complaint against the opposite party. The opposite party denied the allegation levelled against him and claimed trial.

To substantiate his case the complainant besides examining himself as P.W. 1, examined two other witnesses. Out of them, P.W. 2 is a member of Board Directors of the said Hospital, who has deposed to have seen the letter containing scurrilous remarks against the petitioner in the petitioner''s house. P.W. 3 is a witness to the reply, Ext. 5 given by the lawyer of the opposite party to the notice served on the opposite party. The petitioner also relied on certain documents such as Ext. 1, the letter said to have been written by the opposite party to the complainant in April, 1993, Ext. 2 the acknowledgement letter, Ext. 3 the photo copy of the letter, Ext. 4 office copy of the pleader''s notice and Ext. 5 reply to the pleader''s notice. The accused-opposite party however did not examine any witness in support of his case.

The learned counsel of the petitioner contended that the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the complainant and his witnesses in their proper perspectives and has arrived at wrong findings. The learned counsel of the opposite party, on the other hand, argued in support of the findings. In the above context, it is noticed that the learned S.D.J.M. after hearing the parties and considering the evidence found that there is no material to show that the opposite party is the author of Ext. 1, the letter containing the scurrilous remarks against the petitioner. He also found that there is no evidence to show that the photo copy of the letter sent by the petitioner in the address of the opposite party was served on the opposite party and the opposite party sent back the same to the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner has admitted that the letter was not signed and the name appearing in the photo copy is not the signature of the opposite party. The learned Magistrate also found that there is no evidence to come to a finding that the pleader''s notice was served on the opposite party and the reply was given by the counsel being instructed by the opposite party. On the basis of his above findings, the learned Magistrate held the opposite party not guilty of the charge u/s 500, I.P.C. and acquitted him. After hearing the counsel of the parties and carefully going through the impugned judgment, it is noticed that the learned Magistrate has assigned clear and cogent reasons for the findings recorded by him and the order does not suffer from any illegality, manifest error or perversity.

In the above circumstances, the prayer for leave to appeal is refused. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly dismissed.