Dismissed

Dr.Baldeo Prasad Sao v. Narayan Prasad Trivedi and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC10 Apr 2012CRR/9/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, the High Court dismissed the application, holding that the appellate court did not commit any illegality requiring interference in reversing the lower court's conviction and sentence due to lack of evidence regarding the accused instigating the press report.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was dismissed as the appellate court did not commit any illegality.

Dr.Baldeo Prasad Sao Vs Narayan Prasad Trivedi and Ors. — Chhattisgarh HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE fflGH COURT QF CtmATTISGARH AT BBLASPUR

¶3

Cr.R.No,

¶4

¶5

AfcPLICANT: Dr.Baldeo Prasad Sao S/0 Shri Haralal Sao Aged about 53 Years ,0ccupationGovemment Servant, Block Education Officer. 1 -^ 'C? .<...-—- R/0 Beladula, Raigarh Teh. &Distt. ^X...... Raigarh/C.G.)

¶6

Fiicri »n ^X...... ^:>L&^^by 'abri ,,dvocat« VERSUS

¶7

^^(^^

¶8

NON-APPLICANTS: 1. Narayan Prasad Trivedi S/0 Bundram Trivedi Occupation- Asstt. Teacher,Nagar Palika School , Raigarh Teh. &Distt. Raigarh.(C.G-)

¶9

2.State ofChhattisgarh, Through, District collector Distt. Raigarh.(C.G.)

¶10

REVISION ITNDER SECTION 397/4Pl CRIMINAL .PROCEBURE. CODE 1973.

¶11

f€^
?^...''SliSBii
l{i..!fc.
'"^»; -•y
<^

¶12

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶13

Criminal Revision No.9 of 2004

¶14

APPLICANT:

¶15

Dr. Baldeo Prasad Sao

¶16

Versus

¶17

NON-APPLICANTS: 1. Narayan Prasad Trivedi

¶18

State of Chhattisgarh

¶19

{Revision underSection 397/401 ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973}

¶20

Present:

¶21

Mr. Vipin Punjabi, counsel for the applicant.

¶22

Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Panel Lawyer for the State/non-applicant No.2.

¶23

Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(10-4-2012)

¶26

By this revision, the applicant has challenged legality and propriety of the judgment dated 17-9-2003 passed by the 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Appeal No.52/2002, reversing the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 5-4-2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh in Criminal Case No.99/1999, whereby the Judicial Magistrate First Class has convicted non-applicant No.1 under Section 500 of the IPC and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, same was challenged before the appellate Court and while allowing the appeal, the appellate Court has reversed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court and acquitted non-applicant No.1.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgments and records of both the Courts below.

¶28

As per the complaint and news paper, non-applicant No.1 has defamed the applicant by publishing false and defamatory news in the daily newspaper namely Raigarh Dainik Jankarm dated 4:12-95, 7-12-95 and 8-12-95. Complaint was filed and after enquiry under Chapter XV of the CrPC, the trial Court has registered the complaint. After trial, the trial Court has convicted non-applicant No.1, same was challenged before the appellate Court and the appellate Court has acquitted non-applicant No.1.

°^

Page2of2 (<2®.

Cr.R.No.9/2004

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that aforesaid news has been published at the instance of non-applicant No.1, same has been duly proved by Sitaram Patil (PW-4) - Editor of Dainik Jankarm, but the appellate Court has illegally acquitted non-applicant No.1.

¶33

As per evidence of Sitaram Patil (PW-4) dated 26-9-2001 , the matter has been published in December, 1995 on the basis of some written press report, but in his detailed evidence he has specifically deposed that he is not in a position to say that whether the said press report has been received by non-applicant No.1 or by some other sources and that whether it was signed by non-applicant No.1 or not. The alleged press report has not been produced or proved before the Court below. Non-applicantNo.1 has denied such publication.

¶34

In order to prove the defamatory publication that too at the instance of nonapplicant No.1, the applicant was under obligation to prove such press report by cogent evidence. Such press report is neither produced nor proved^{attheinstanceoftheapplicant.} Sitaram Patil (PW-4) has deposed relating to such press report after lapse of more than four years.

¶35

In absence of any material or proof relating to such defamatory press report by non-applicant No.1 and publication of such defamatory press report at the instance of non-applicant No.1, by reversing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellate Court has not committed any illegality requiring interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision is, therefore, liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

Soma

T.P. Sharma

Judge

..-i;-.

Dr.Baldeo Prasad Sao v. Narayan Prasad Trivedi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Baldeo Prasad Sao v. Narayan Prasad Trivedi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Trilok Bandhu Gupta Vs the State of M.P.

Basant Babu Verma Vs Jama Bai and Ors.

State Vs Rajmani Rai

Shyamlal Vs State of M.P.

Naza Muddin Vs Bushra Mahezabin

Hari Sailac Industries Vs State of Chhattisgarh