Parveen Gupta vs Arun Poddar and others

Applicant - Parveen Gupta has filed this application under

Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking special leave to appeal.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that complainant -

Parveen Gupta had brought a criminal complaint under Section 500 IPC

read with Section 34 IPC against Arun Podder, Director, Kamal Kumar

Poddar, Director, Joginder Singh, Senior Manager (Personnel and

Administrator), Prabhu Lal Nandwana, General Manager (Commercial)

and Rohit Poddar, Director, Poddar Tyres Ltd., VPO G.T. Road, District

Ludhiana on the allegations that complainant was posted as Legal

Officer in Poddar Tyres, Ludhiana in January 2002; that earlier he was

practicing as an Advocate at District Court, Kurukshetra and he belongs

to a reputed family; that there arose a dispute between the complainant

and the accused from 4.9.1998 inasmuch as accused No.3 - Joginder

Singh at the instance of accused No.4 - Prabhu Lal manhandled the

complainant and forced him to give resignation; that the complainant

had lodged his protest in writing before the police; that the matter was

still pending before Superintendent of Police, City 1, Ludhiana; that on

24.1.2009 Shalini Gupta wife of Vipin Gupta, brother of complainant

expired at Ludhiana and her dead body was brought to Kurukshetra for

cremation; that all the relatives, family members and friends had

assembled there; that family members of the complainant were

mourning the death of the deceased for 13 days; that the complainant

was at Kurukshetra in that connection, though, his residence was at

Sahnewal, which was very much within the knowledge of the accused.

However, all the accused knowingly and intentionally and in collusion

of each other with a view to defame and humiliate the complainant and

to counter the action of complainant in reporting the matter to police got

published a public notice in Punjab Kesari, Daily Newspaper dated

28.1.2009 specifically in Kurukshetra edition which is as under:

"It is notified that the services of Mr.Parveen Gupta son of

Sh.Badri Prashad Gupta working with us as ''Legal Officer''

has been terminated w.e.f. 25.12.2008 and a Termination

letter No.PTL/9870/2008-2009 dated 25.12.2008 has been

sent to his present residence at Opp. Sacred Heart Convent

School, Majara Road, New Model Town, Sahnewal,

District Ludhiana (Punjab). He has also not deposited

company''s property and files, documents which are in his

possession. The public is intimated through this notice that company will not be responsible for his act and conduct in

GENERAL MANAGER

PODDAR TYRES LIMITED

G.T. ROAD - JUGIANA

DISTT. LUDHIANA(PB) - 141 420

The accused had served the termination letter to the

complainant at his residence at Sahnewal through registered post, which

was received by the son of the complainant on 30.1.2009 with some

dues - through cheque. However, the entire dues of the complainant

have not yet been cleared. Hence, the public notice in the newspaper

dated 28.1.2009 was not required. The accused knowingly and

intentionally with a view to spoil the future of the complainant and to

block the further employment opportunities for the complainant, in other

corporate houses has got published the notice. The accused without any

requirement published the photograph of the complainant in a

defamatory manner. The complainant is not in possession of any

property and documents of the accused but the accused in the

defamatory manner got mentioned in the publication, "He has also not

deposited the company''s property and files, documents which are in his

possession. The public is intimated through this notice that company

will not be responsible for his act and conduct in future." The accused

has projected complainant as a cheater through these defamatory words

used against him. This publication is defamatory-in-nature.

According to the complainant, the language used is

defamatory which may block the future of complainant. Then the

accused by way of registered post sent the amount of Rs.52,000/-

approximately by cheque along with termination letter on 30.1.2009 as

full and final payment presuming as nothing is in possession of the

complainant relating to the accused. The accused knowingly and

intentionally with a mala fide intention got circulated the public notice

in Kurukshetra edition of Punjab Kesari dated 28.1.2009 during the

funeral ceremonies of the family members of the complainant, when the

relatives and friends assembled at Kurukshetra, with a view to damage

the reputation of the complainant. After publication of said notice in the

newspaper, accused No.3 Joginder Singh made a telephone call to

complainant on 28.1.2009 and said "aaj da Punjab Kesari padh lena

tenu pata-lag jyega. Kurukshetra edition zaroor dekhin", roughly

translated it means that do read Punjab Kesari newspaper of today, you

would come to know and you must see Kurukshetra edition of the

newspaper. According to the complainant after publication of the notice,

he received many telephone calls from relatives and friends including

Anju wife of Sandeep Gupta, resident of Jalandhar, Rameshwar Dass

Gupta son of Amar Nath, resident of Ambala and Shyam Lal son of Om

Parkash, resident of Urban Estate, Kurukshetra etc. enquiring about

contents of the notice. The complainant was fed up by explaining his

position before the public and such persons refuting defamatory

allegations levelled by accused. The complainant and his family

members remained in prolonged depression after publication of the

defamatory public notice along with his photograph. The accused have

projected the complainant in the newspaper as a criminal.

The Magistrate in whose Court the complaint was filed vide

order 16.4.2009 summoned the accused to face trial for the offence

under Section 500 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused put in

appearance. Notice of accusation was served upon them. However, the

accused had challenged the order dated 27.1.2014 vide which notice of

accusation was served upon them. Learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Kurukshetra vide order dated 11.2.2014 accepted the revision petition

coming to the conclusion that there was no mens rea on the part of the

accused - petitioner and no prima facie offence under Section 500 read

with Section 34 IPC was made out against them, therefore, impugned

order dated 27.1.2014 was set aside and petitioners were acquitted. That

order left the complainant aggrieved and he has filed an application

under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of special leave to appeal against

the order dated 27.1.2014 passed Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,

Kurukshetra.

This application has not been filed within time. Rather there

is delay of 251 days in filing the application/appeal. Inter alia in the said

application, it is contended that the appeal was filed on 24.4.2014 and it

was returned with some objections by the registry on 25.4.2014. It was

re-filed on 13.6.2014, after removal of objections. However, it was

returned with some objection again on 1.7.2014 and the Clerk for the

counsel placed the file into some other brief and when the appellant

asked about his case then on search the papers were found, so the appeal

was filed belatedly by 251 days, therefore, the same be condoned.

Notice of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act was ordered to be given to respondents, who put in appearance.

The limitation for filing such an application is 60 days from

the date when the order of acquittal was passed. This application has

been filed much beyond period of limitation.

Section 378 Cr.P.C. deals with appeal in case of acquittal.

Sub- Section 4 of this Section provides that if such an order is passed in

any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an

application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special

leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present

such an appeal to the High Court..

Sub- Section 5 provides that no application under Sub-

Section 4 for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of

acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of six

months, where the complainant is a public servant and sixty days in

every other case, computed from the date of that order of acquittal.

It being so the petitioner was required to file application for

grant of special leave to appeal within 60 days of the order passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. However, which has not been

so done and there is delay of 251 days in filing of the appeal. The

explanation rendered for delay is least convincing and no ground is

made out for condonation of delay in filing the application. Section 3 of

the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with bar of limitation providing that

every suit instituted, appeal and application made after the prescribed

period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a

defence.

The petitioner having failed to cross the hurdle of the

limitation, the application for special leave to appeal is bound to fail on

that score alone. Otherwise also, there is a major defect in the

application inasmuch as in the application seeking special leave to

appeal, the order which is sought to be challenged is the order passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class dated 27.1.2014 acquitting the accused,

when as a matter of fact vide order dated 27.1.2014 learned Magistrate

had directed service of notice under Section 500 read with Section 34

IPC upon the accused. The petitioner by way of seeking setting aside of

this order, rather is going against his own interest. The order which

ought to have been challenged is the order dated 11.2.2014 passed by

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra vide which the revision

preferred by accused Arun Poddar, Rohit Poddar and Joginder Singh

was accepted and summoning order dated 27.1.2014 was set aside,

resultantly the accused were acquitted. Thus, there is a vital defect in the

application for which it cannot survive.

Nevertheless on merits also, the judgment passed by

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra is well reasoned one.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge has gone into all aspect of the case

in detail and referring to Section 499 IPC dealing with offence of

defamation has come to the conclusion that the case in hand falls within

Ninth Exception which deals with imputation made in good faith by

person for protection of his or other''s interest and that it is not

defamation to make any imputation on the character of another

providing that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of

the interest of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the

public good.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra giving

reasons for the judgment has observed that services of complainant were

terminated as he had not been reporting for duty for a long time and by

way of notice the public in general was cautioned not to deal with the complainant as he was no longer working for the company; that the

news item on the face of it does not appear to be defamatory at all and

the circumstances were such that the company was constrained to

publish such a notice as the complainant had stopped working for the

company. It was issued in good faith for the interest of the

company...............

I have gone through the notice with which the complainant

is aggrieved with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and

I do not find anything defamatory in the same. Such type of notices are

usually published by the employers with regard to the employees, who

were absent from duty without intimation or are guilty of some

misconduct. Too much cannot be looked into between the lines so as to

interpret the notice to have element of mala fide. It seems that the instant

complaint was filed as a pressure tactic on account of tussle between the

parties resulting in termination of services of complainant by his

employer - Poddar Tyres Ltd.

Thus no ground is made out to grant special leave to appeal

in this case. The application is, therefore dismissed accordingly.