The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the criminal appeal seeking to set aside an acquittal under Sections 499 and 500 IPC regarding defamation during a Lokayuktha enquiry, holding that the accused's statements fell under exceptions for good faith and protection of public interest.
Appeal dismissed; conviction not ordered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 02nd DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100017/2015
BETWEEN:
D. VENUGOPAL S/O D. HANUMANTHAPPA AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE COUNCILOR, R/O: RANIPET, HOSPET, BELLARY DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI VEERESH R. BUDIHAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Y. MANJUNATHA S/O Y. DEVENDRAPPA AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT, EIB NO.2, VIJAYANAGARA, BANGALORE – 560 040.
AT PRESENT: JOINT COMMISSIONER EXCISE (E & I) NEAR S. P. OFFICE, OPP: MARATA MANDALI, BELAGAVI, D V. BELAGAVI.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI T. M. NADAF, AMICUS CURIAE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(4) CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 20.09.2014 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., COURT, HOSPET IN C.C.NO.1521/2005.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 17.01.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
2
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant-complainant challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hospete in C.C.No.1521/2005 dated 20.09.2014 whereby he has
acquitted the accused-respondent herein for the offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC.
The complainant has lodged a complaint against the accused on 27.10.2003 before Hon’ble Lokayuktha alleging that accused has colluded with excise contractors and causing loss to State Exchequer to the tune of Rs.42,00,000/-. It is alleged that on
3
23.11.2004 at 3 p.m. the Hon’ble Lokayuktha held an enquiry on the complaints given against the government officials at Sahakari Kalyana Mantapa, Hospete. When Hon’ble Lokayuktha has enquired about the complaint lodged by the complainant against the accused, the accused instead of giving answers, he has stated that the complainant is selling adulterated neera, he is putting Garb of Raith Sangha, he is an anti-social element and dangerous person to the society indulging in illegal activities. It is alleged that when the accused has made such allegations, number of persons were there in the public meeting and thereby it is alleged that accused has intentionally defamed the complainant in the eye of the public. It is also alleged that the same has been telecasted in the Karnataka Network channel (KCN) at 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. along with other channels and same is viewed by his friends who brought it to his notice.
4
5
of excise criminal cases and he was prosecuted in nearly more than 13 matters.
he contested the criminal proceedings, before this Court he did not appear. However, this Court was kind enough to engage the services of Amicus Curiae
6
which was infact unwarranted. However, since the respondent-accused is a public servant, the fees of Amicus Curiae are required to be recovered from him only.
7
admittedly, there were two fractions in the Raita Sangha. It is further asserted that the complainant was involved in number of criminal cases and rowdy sheet was opened against him and the statement made by the accused was on the basis of records and hence it is asserted that he falls under exception and accordingly the Trial Court has considered this aspect and the judgment does not call for any interference.
serious dispute of the fact that on 23.11.2004 in Sahakari Kalyana Mantapa, Hospete, the Hon’ble
8
Lokayuktha was hearing public grievances against the Government Officials. It is also not under serious dispute that the complainant himself has submitted a complaint against the accused alleging that accused has caused huge loss to the exchequer by colluding with other excise contractors. When an explanation was sought in this regard by the Hon’ble Lokayuktha, accused is said to have given explanation asserting the character of the complainant.
9
allegations are well founded. What is the base for these allegations is not at all forthcoming and complainant is not prepared to explain these aspects. There is no dispute regarding the accused uttering the specific words but his defence is that he has uttered these words only on the basis of the available records. Section 499 deals with defamation and it reads as under;
“499. Whoever 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 reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.
Eighth Exception. – Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person. – It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that
10
person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation.
Ninth Exception. – Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’s interests. – It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.”
accusation or imputation made in good faith for protection of his or others interest is not defamation. Admittedly in the instant case, it is evident that the complainant was involved in more than 13 to 15 criminal cases and also he was prosecuted regarding selling adulterated neera and it is also evident that a rowdy sheet was opened against him. Hence, it is evident that whatever statement is made by the accused, it is based on documentary evidence and it is
11
not his personal opinion. But on the contrary, what is the evidence for complainant to make such an allegation against the accused regarding he joining hands with other excise contractors, is not at all forthcoming. Though it is argued that in criminal cases complainant was acquitted, no material evidence was placed to substantiate this aspect. The accusation-imputation made by the complainant is on the basis of records and hence it falls under exception 8th and 9th to Section 499.
Hon’ble Lokayuktha to seek such an explanation in presence of complainant itself that too in a public place. In fact, by seeking exception regarding the allegations, the accused being a public servant, his reputation was equally damaged by the complainant, when he has not substantiated the allegations made against him. The complainant is not prepared to
12
explain any of these aspects. Apart from that, when the allegations made in the complaint disclose that when they were made in the meeting, it was not heard by the complainant himself and his assertion is that, he got information from his friends, as the same was telecasted. How the complainant could not hear this aspect is not at all forthcoming, if at all this meeting was telecasted. Then the allegations made by the complainant pertaining to which explanation was sought is also telecasted and in that event the reputation of the accused was also damaged.
13
evidence in detail. At no stretch of imagination the judgment of acquittal is said to be erroneous or illegal so as to call for any interference. Under such circumstances the question of interference with said judgment of acquittal does not arise at all, as the learned Magistrate has considered all these aspects in detail and analyzed the evidence in detail with reference to exceptions under Section 499. Apart from that, when there is a benefit of acquittal in favour of the accused, the high standard of proof is expected from the complainant. There is no much evidence is forthcoming in this regard. Considering these facts and circumstances, there is no evidence to prove that the judgment suffers from any infirmity or arbitrariness so as to call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the point under consideration is answered in the negative and as such the appeal fails and accordingly I proceed to pass the following:
14
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed by confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Hospete in C.C.No.1521/2005 dated 20.09.2014.
ii) The fees of the Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.3,000/-. The accusedrespondent herein is a public servant being a Gazetted Officer did not respond to the Court summons and the State is not supposed spend on him. Hence, the entire amount paid to the Amicus Curiae shall be recovered from the respondent by deducting the same from his salary
15
along with the additional costs of Rs.2,000/-.
iv) Send the copy of this judgment to the concerned department/ Home Secretary for deducting Rs.5,000/from the salary of the accusedrespondent.
Sd/JUDGE
SSP
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court suffers from perversity, arbitrariness, or infirmity warranting interference by this Court.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
D. Venugopal
Y. Manjunatha
Rajendra Badamikar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
