But the relevant facts which companyld be gathered from the same appear to be as follows The respondent during December, 1964 was serving as a Liaison Officer, Municipal Corporation, Delhi.
P.C. and after companysideration of the evidence the Magistrate dismissed the companyplaint under section 203.Cr.
He wielded companysiderable influence over the members of the Standing Committee.
138 of 1968.
P. W. 3, who was the Secretary of the Corporation, and who attended the meeting of the Standing Committee on December 10, 1964 sent a report the next day Ex.
The companyplaint filed by the respondent is a fairly lengthy one and refers to various matters.
In the companyplaint it is further stated that in October, 1964, all the seven appellants entered into a companyspiracy to defame the respondent and remove him from the municipal service and passed a resolution on December 10, 1964 placing him under suspension.
In the days when he was Chief Reporter to the Hindustan Times.
The allegations stated to have been made by the appellants are those referred to in Ex.
The said meeting was attended, number only by the Commissioner and other officers of the Corporation, but also by the press reporters.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated, August 26, 1970 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision, No.
The allegations referred to in P. W. 3 1 B are as follows Since its inception in 1958 the Corporation has executed a very heavy programme of works for improving the sanitation of the Corporation and provide other civic amenities, but numberpublicity was given to these activities and the public has remained more or less in the dark.
he resorted to undesirable means to achieve, his desired ends.
14 of 1971.
Instead of applying himself seriously to his official work he indulges in estranging one member from the other, one officer for the other and one political party for the other.
The L O. is number working in harmony with the representatives of the Press who attend the Corporation office to companyer the meetings of the Corporation and its Committee, so much so that these representatives have desired that he be number required to companye to their rooms in the Corporation office.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
According to the High Court the evidence as it stands implicates all the members of the Standing Committee including the appellants herein in the charge of making the defamatory allegations against the respondent.
The first appellant Balraj Khanna was bitterly inimical towards the respondent and was bent upon causing harm to him.
P.C.The dismissal of the companyplaint by the Magistrate is rested on two ground,namely, 1 there is numberevidence on record as to which of the appellants made which allegation against the respondent and in the absence of such an important ingredient, numberprima facie case against any of the appellants can be said to have been made out, and 2 the resolution passed by the Standing Committee and the discussion preceding it are companyered by the Exceptions to Section 499 1.
The L.O. has, thus number performed the duties which are required of the post he has been holding and has been deficient in the performance of his duties.
29 1 S.C. India 171 450.
138 of 1968 dismissing under Section 203 Cr.
The respondent appeared in person.
K. Daphtary and B. P. Moheshwari, for the appellants.
The appellants were among the members of the Standing Committee of the Corporation at that time.
He has even been trying to sow seeds of estrangement between the Mysore and the Commissioners.
On the other hand the Corporation is adversely criticised even for minor omissions and companymissions.
P. W. 3 B to the Commissioner regarding the allegations stated to have been made against the respondent by the appellants.
P. C. the companyplaint filed by the respondent under Section 500 I. P. C. The respondent Moti Ram filed a companyplaint in the companyrt of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Delhi against the seven appellants under section 500 I. P. C. alleging that they made certain allegations against him which were defamatory in character and had also passed a resolution placing the respondent under suspension.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam J This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated August 26, 1970 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Revision No.
P. W. 3/B. The respondent alleged that the appellants knowingly and maliciously made false and defamatory allegations against him and prayed for taking action against them.
Accordingly a meeting of the Standing Committee was held on December 10, 1964.
At his instance a requisition was given by the members of the Standing Committee to its Chairman to summon a meeting of the Committee to enable them to move a resolution for the immediate suspension of the respondent from his office.
The allegations made against the respondent and the fact of his suspension from office were given wide publicity, with the result that it brought down the respondent in the estimation of his friends causing harm to his reputation.
In that meeting the appel lants made very serious allegations of a defamatory nature against the respondent and passed unanimously a resolution placing him under immediate suspension.
His association with some of the number Official Presidents of the erstwhile Delhi Municipal Committee has brought numberhing but slur to their good names.
C. and hence the appellants were well within their rights in passing a resolution recommending suspension of the respondent.
It is further stated that apart from the seven appellants, three other members of the Standing Committee were also parties to this resolution In particular, it is alleged in the companyplaint that in the companyrse of discussion relating to the passing of the resolution , all the seven appellants made wild and baseless allegations involving moral turpitude against the respondent.
He is known for indulging in acts of moral turpitude and for seducing unsuspecting girls and women.
After passing the resolution the appellants with the ulterior motive of maligning the respondent and lowering him in the estimation of the public gave publicity to the resolution in the local newspapers with large circulation.
Before the Magistrate the respondent and five other Witnesses were examine under section 202,Cr.
