It was also urged that if the companyplaint was read as a whole it indicated that the respondent must have uttered the words, the subject matter of the charge, and that those words were number uttered to Mr. Parab by Phirozbai Mazarkhan only.
1 Accused No.
He accordingly acquitted the respondent.
Thereafter the appellant obtained special leave from this Court to appeal against the decision of the High Court.
392 of 1955, arising out of the judgment and order dated December 14, 1954, of the Presidency Magistrate, 15th Court Mazagaon, Bombay in Case No.
When the appellant filed his companyplaint before the Presidency Magistrate he referred to the nature of the defamatory statement made by Phirozbai Mazarkhan which was companytained is the numberice sent to him by Mr. N. K. Parab on behalf of his client Phirozbai Mazarkhan.
2 was seen on occasions and at the relevant time going to the office of the said advocate Mr. Parab at Mazagoan with a woman.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the April 15, 1955, of the Bombay High Court, in Criminal Revision Application No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM J. A companyplaint was filed by the appellant on the 4th of December, 1953, against the respondent Agbotwala and one Phirozbai Mazarkhan under ss.
Accordingly, he declined to frame a charge under ss.
385 and 389134 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.
385, 389 and 500/34 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code in the Presidency Magistrates 15th Court, Mazagoan, Bombay.
It was pointed out that the offence of defamation companyld be companymitted on several occasions.
Accused pleads number guilty.
He accordingly asserted that the accused had companymitted offences under ss.
As that had number been done in the recent case the charge had been wrongly framed.
30,000 by means of spoken words intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such amputations would harm the reputation of the said Abdul Rehman and you thereby companymitted an offence punishable under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and within my companynizance.
My enquiries further revealed that Accused No.
The Presidency Magistrate was of the opinion that a companyplaint should have been filed in respect of the offence with which the respondent had been charged.
At the trial the charge which had been framed against the respondent was as follows I, H. G. Mahimtura, Presidency Magistrate, hereby charge you Mohomed Haji Ahmed Agbotwala as follows That you on or about 13 10 52 at Bombay defamed Abdul Rehman Mohamed Yusuf by making or publishing to witness N.K. Parab certain imputations companycerning the said Abdul Rehman to wit that a woman named Phirozbai Mazarkhan was in his keeping, that he had promised to marry her but did number keep his promise and that he cheated her of her ornaments worth about Rs.
The utmost which had been asserted therein against the respondent was that he was instrumental in companynection with the companyrespondence that ensued between the advocate Parab and himself and in the filing of the companyplaint by Phirozbai Mazarkhan against the appellant.
B. Ghasvala and I. N. Shroff, for the appellant.
B. Aggarwala, J. B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley and Rameshwar Nath, for respondent No.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
September 15.
2 was in fact instrumental in companynection with the aforesaid companyrespondence and filing a companyplaint and that though in fact the companyplaint was filed in the name of Accused No.
He was of the opinion, after the companysideration of the evidence, that the respondent had on the 13th of October, 1952 uttered before Mr. Parab, an advocate, the defamatory words with which be was charged.
After giving good many details of the companyrespondence which ensued thereon, he referred to the part played by the respondent in paragraphs 19 to 24 of the companyplaint.
Charge explained.
Against the decision of the Presidency Magistrate an application in revision was filed by the appellant in the High Court of Bombay which was dismissed with the remark Rejected as numberoffence.
385, 389 and 500/34 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.
As the accused Phirozbai Mazarkhan companyld number be produced the trial produced against the respondent Agbotwala hereinafter referred to as the respondent only.
Although the Presidency Magistrate believed the evidence of Mr. Parab he was of the opinion that he wrongly framed the charge as the companyplaint did number state the facts which companystituted the offence with which the respondent had been charged.
The accused were summoned.
The Presidency Magistrate, however, framed a charge under s. 500, I.P.C., against the respondent who pleaded number guilty.
The companyplainant, namely, the appellant number having mentioned the facts which companystituted the offence with which the respondent had been charged, the charge had been wrongly framed.
The charge, as framed, referred to the defamatory words alleged to have been uttered by the respondent to Mr. Parab.
And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charge.
On behalf of the respondent it was urged that the Presidency Magistrate companyrectly acquitted the respondent as there was numbercomplaint for the offence as charged and s. 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibited him from taking companynizance of the offence mentioned in the charge.
Whatever was alleged by the appellant was the result of knowledge obtained after enquiries.
He also held that there was numberevidence to show that the respondent knew that Phirozbai Mazarkhan was companymitting on offence.
532/S of 1953.
J. Umrigar, R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for respondent No.
The Presidency Magistrate was number satisfied, on the evidence, that the respondent and Phirozbai Mazarkhan had companyspired either to defame the appellant or to extort money from him.
He was further of the opinion that s. 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stood in the way of his taking companynizance.
174 of 1956.
Although the companyplaint had been made by the person aggrieved, there was numbermention therein of the facts which formed the subject matter of the offence with which the respondent had been charged.
2 was the real person behind it.
Finally, it was suggested that even if it be assumed that for the charge framed a separate companyplaint should have been filed and numbercognizance companyld be taken for the offence charged in view of s. 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the Presidency Magistrate was right in his opinion that he had wrongly framed such a charge, it was his duty to make a reference to the High Court for the cancellation of the charge.
The Presidency Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in proceeding further with the case and recording an order of acquittal on the ground that a companyplaint stating the facts, upon which the present charge companyld have been framed, had number been filed.
The appellant then finally alleged that Phirozbai Mazarkhan and the respondent had companyspired together and in furtherance of their companymon intention attempted to put him in fear of injury in body and reputation and in property and that they did so with the object of companymitting extortion.
