TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (5) TMI 966
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fully break opening the drawer of table containing the cheque book which was locked by our Accountant while leaving the office for the day." 3. The Magistrate found these allegations as false and convicted the respondents (accrued) for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 17.12.1998. An appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the IV Additional Sessions Court, Bangalore on 30.7.1999. According to the appellant the respondents made false and malicious allegations with intention or knowingly or having reasons to believe that such imputations would harm his reputation; due to these imputations made by them, reputation of the appellant has been lowered in the eyes of his partners, the staff and the worker so factory at Vapi. Hence he prayed for punishing the respondents for the offence under Section 500 IPC. The Magistrate, on the complaint, after taking cognizance of the offence, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant (appellant herein). The Magistrate in his order stated thus:- "From the sworn statement of the complainant and also from the documents produced by him, it is clear that the accused persons have made imputatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the offence was continuing on e having regard to its nature; the imputations made in the application filed by the respondents on 26.9.1996 under Section 436 Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge is considered as the date of commission of offence, the complaint filed by the appellant is not hit by Section 468 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the respondents in support of his submissions relied on decisions in Manjaya against Sesha Shetti (1888) ILR 11 Mad., 477) Sayed Ally vs. King Emperor AIR 1925 Rang 360, Anthoni Udayar and others vs. Velusami Theyar and another (1948)1MLJ420 and Baboo Gunnesh Dutt Singh vs. Mugneeram Chowdry and others 1872 WR 11 SC 283. 8. We have considered the rival submissions. The High Court relying g on para 7 of the judgment in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojicao Angre and other. 1988CriLJ853 : 1988CriLJ853 exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 quashed the proceedings. The learned judge Section 482 quashed the proceedings. The learned Judge did not bestow his attention to the facts of that case and the discussions made in paras 6 and 8 of the said judgment. In that case the complaint was filed for offences punishable unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The learned judge has failed to apply the tests indicated in para 7 of the judgment on which he relied. The High Court could not say at that stage that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction resulting in the case after a trial. The Magistrate had convicted the respondents for the offences under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the appeal filed by the respondents was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Assuming that the imputations made could be covered by exception 9 of Section 499 IPC, several questions still remain to be examined -whether such imputations were made in good faith, in what circumstances, with what intention, etc. All these can be examined on the basis of evidence in the trial. The decisions in Manjaya against Sesha Shetti ILR (1888) Mad., 477) Saved Ally vs. King Emperor AIR 1925 Rang 360 and Anthoni Udayar and others vs. Velusami Theyar and another (1948)1MLJ420 : (1948)1MLJ420 , cited by the learned counsel for the respondents are the cases considered "after conviction" having regard to the facts of those cases and the evidence placed on record. 10. The decision in Baboo Gunnesh Dutt Singh vs. Mugneeram Chowdry and others (1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Prasad Sinha's case (supra) reads:- "13. As regards the allegations made against the appellant in the complaint filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, at Nasik, on a reading of the complaint we do not think that we will be justified at this stage to quash that complaint. It is not the province of this Court to appreciate at this stage the evidence or scope of and meaning of the statement. Certain allegations came to be made but whether these allegations do constitute defamation of the Marwari community as a business class and whether the appellant had intention to cite as an instance of general feeling among the community and whether the context in which the said statement came to be made, as is sought to be argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, are all matters to be considered by the learned Magistrate at a later stage. At this stage, we cannot embark upon weighing the evidence and come to any conclusion to hold, whether or not the allegations made in the complaint constitute an offence punishable under section 500. It is the settled legal position that a court has to read the complaint as a whole and find out whether allegations disc....