T. Sathyanarayan Naidu vs Sri. K.F. Irani

Huluvadi. G. Ramesh, J.—This appeal is by the complainant being aggrieved by the order of JMFC III Court, Mysore in C.C. No. 426/2008 (old CC. No. 320/2007).

A private complaint was filed by the complainant against the Respondent for the offence punishable u/s 500 of IPC. According to the complainant, the 70th Annual General Body Meeting of Sri Kanteerava Narasimharaja Mysore. Sports Club. Mysore was held on 17.09.2006 in the premises of the club as per rules. The complainant is said to have issued a notice to move two resolutions at the meeting and when the President took up the item on the agenda, complainant read out two resolutions and the resolutions were seconded by another member B. Vijay Singh. Immediately, the accused is said to have got up and pointing out towards complainant said "this man, this cannibal, filed a complaint against the members because he was thrown out". At that juncture, when the President had intervened and asked the accused not to use such language, accused expressed not to interrupt and stated that "do you know, we (the club) had to go to Nazarbad police station and to the police commissioner''s office", and further that "I am not going into the pros and cons about the reputation of Mr. T Sathyanarayana in the Society".

In this context, a full-fledged trial was held before the III JMFC, Mysore. The learned Magistrate has noticed that, the main issue in question is using of the word ''cannibal'' by the accused to the complainant at the time of Annual General Body Meeting. According to the evidence of P.W.1, the accused expressed a libelous word and at that time, the President of the club intervened and advised the accused not to use such words. It is his specific contention that the accused pointing out towards the complainant called him ''cannibal'' wherein apart from the President intervening in the matter, other members who were present have also heard the defamatory expressions made by the accused against the complainant.

Ex.P4 is the report of the General Body meeting. The trial Court has observed that, it is an unauthenticated report, which is not signed by the office bearers of the club. It has also referred to the evidence of D.W.1 the accused, wherein the accused has denied the suggestion that the Managing Committee refused to give him the audio cassette said to have contained the defamatory word. Further referring to Ex.P12, the 12th Managing Committee Meeting Proceedings wherein a word was corrected, it has noted that the word used by the accused was ''tenable'' and not ''cannibal''. Even as per Ex.P16, the committee is said to have listened to the recorded tapes of the 70th Annual General Body Meeting and the tape was preserved in a safe custody. Further, referring to Ex.P18, the 12th meeting of the Managing Committee it is noted that all the members present noted the word used by the accused was ''tenable'' and not ''cannibal''. The trial Court has also noted that even the President of the club or Mr. Vijay Singh, who would have corroborated the complainant''s version, have not been examined before the Court and accordingly, has formed an opinion that, although the word ''cannibal'' is per se defamatory, but candidly the accused has denied the use of word cannibal and he has clarified that the word used is ''tenable''.

Might be that the accent and expression would have been misunderstood and in the previous background of lodging the complaint, some exchange of words would have taken place. When the accused himself has clarified and stated that he has not used the word ''cannibal'' and it is only the word ''tenable'', the trial Court has rightly opined that such accent used by the accused has been misunderstood by the complainant as ''cannibal'' instead of ''tenable'' and that the complainant has failed to establish the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, when the word has been clarified by the accused himself as ''tenable'' instead of cannibal, the same may not be treated as an offence.

The appeal filed by the complainant is disposed of, with the above clarification.