{"id":64093,"date":"1995-04-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-04-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995"},"modified":"2015-07-17T18:48:31","modified_gmt":"2015-07-17T13:18:31","slug":"shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995","title":{"rendered":"Shri Ganesh Narayan Hegde vs Shri S. Bangarappa And Ors on 20 April, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Shri Ganesh Narayan Hegde vs Shri S. Bangarappa And Ors on 20 April, 1995<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC (4)\t41, \t JT 1995 (4)\t124<\/div>\n
Author: B Jeevan Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSHRI GANESH NARAYAN HEGDE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHRI S. BANGARAPPA AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT20\/04\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nMAJMUDAR S.B. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1995 SCC  (4)\t41\t  JT 1995 (4)\t124\n 1995 SCALE  (2)748\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.:\n<\/p>\n
1.   Leave granted.  Heard counsel for both  the parties.\n<\/p>\n
2.   The  appeal  arises from the judgment and\torder  of  a
\nlearned\t Single Judge of the Karnataka High  Court  quashing
\nthe charge framed by the learned Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
3.   A\tcomplaint  was filed by the  appellant\tagainst\t the
\nthree  respondents  herein under Section 500 of\t the  Indian
\nPenal Code.  After receiving the evidence of the prosecution
\nas  contemplated  by  Section 244,  the\t learned  Magistrate
\nframed the charge against the respondent-, under Section 500
\nof  the\t Indian Penal Code.  While framing the\tcharge,\t the
\nlearned\t Magistrate has recorded his reasons  therefor.\t  In
\nthis  order,  he referred to the objections  raised  by\t the
\naccused and his reasons for rejecting the same.\t The learned
\nMagistrate  observed:  “(O)n  going  through  the   evidence
\nadduced before court by the complainant at this stage, I  am
\nof the considered opinion that there exist grounds to  frame
\ncharge against A. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable U\/S. 500
\nI.P.C.” The first respondent preferred a Revision  (Criminal
\nRevision   Petition  No.104  of\t 1989)\tbefore\t the   First
\nAdditional  Sessions Judge, Hubli against the order  of\t the
\nlearned\t Magistrate.  The learned Sessions  Judge  dismissed
\nthe   Revision\tobserving  that\t inasmuch  as  the   learned
\nMagistrate  has framed the charge on a consideration of\t the
\nevidence  adduced by the complainant, oral and\tdocumentary,
\nand  on\t being satisfied that there was a prima\t facie\tcase
\nmade out against the accused, his order is not liable to  be
\ninterfered  with in Revision. He observed that a  Revisional
\nCourt  can interfere with the order of the trial  magistrate
\nframing\t charges only where it finds that the order  of\t the
\ntrial magistrate is illegal, capricious or perverse.  There-
\nupon  the first respondent approached the High\tCourt  under
\nSection\t 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for\t the
\nquashing  of the charge.  The learned Single  Judge  allowed
\nthe petition on the Following basis:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “From the discussion made above, it has to  be
\n\t      said that the approach of the Courts below  in
\n\t      ordering\t to   frame   charge   against\t the
\n\t      petitioner  and the other two accused  for  an
\n\t      offence  punishable under Section 500  IPC  is
\n\t      the  resultant of non- application of mind  to
\n\t      the  material  available on  record  and\talso
\n\t      resultant\t   of\t incorrect    exercise\t  of
\n\t      jurisdiction  conferred.\t The  Courts   below
\n\t      should have borne in mind that a person can be
\n\t      charged  only  when  the\tallegations  alleged
\n\t      against  him are established prima  facie\t and
\n\t      not  otherwise, because in criminal cases\t the
\n\t      Courts  must  be\tvery  cautious\tand  careful
\n\t      before   proceeding   to\t frame\t charge\t  as
\n\t      unnecessary framing of charge on the one\thand
\n\t      may  result in affecting the  persons  liberty
\n\t      and on the other hand cause continuous and
\n\t      128<\/span>
\n\t      unnecessary harassment, as it has happened  in
\n\t      the instant case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      From the allegations made in the complaint and
\n\t      the  intention  to prosecute  the\t accused  by
\n\t      pursuing the complaint the material placed  on
\n\t      record  and  the information gathered  at\t the
\n\t      trial it is clear that it is a matter of\tmere
\n\t      prestige for both the parties who according to
\n\t      their   own   version  belong   to   different
\n\t      political faiths.\t It is not a genuine case of
\n\t      one making any inputation against the other or
\n\t      the other being defamed or his reputation low-
\n\t      ered  in the estimation of the  public.\tThis
\n\t      prolonged\t  and  protracted   litigation\t and
\n\t      harassment to both the parties would have been
\n\t      ended  in the beginning itself if\t the  courts
\n\t      below had taken into consideration the  effect
\n\t      of  Section 245 Cr.P.C. and its  applicability
\n\t      to the necessary material on record keeping in
\n\t      mind   the   basis  of  the   complaint,\t the
\n\t      admissibility of the documents in evidence and
\n\t      the  circumstances  and context in  which\t the
\n\t      alleged\timputations   were   made   by\t the
\n\t      petitioner.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
4.   The  learned  Judge quashed the charge  not  only\twith
\nrespect\t to the first respondent-accused, who alone was\t the
\npetitioner before him, but also with respect to\t Respondents
\n2  and\t3 (Accused 2 and 3 respectively),  who\thad  neither
\nfiled  a Revision before the Sessions Judge nor had  applied
\nto the High Court for quashing the charge.\n<\/p>\n
5.   The  complainant-appellant, Shri Ganesh Narayan  Hegde,
\nsays  that  he belongs to a highly  reputed  and  well-known
\nfamily\tof  North Kanara district whose main  occupation  is
\nagriculture and sericulture.  Some members of the family are
\nrunning\t a rice mill and one of the sons of the\t complainant
\nis running a chemical factory.\tThe complainant says that he
\nis  the\t founder and President of  various  cooperative\t and
\neducational  institutions and that he is also  the  founder-
\nPresident  of Sahakari Shikshan Prasarak  Samithi,  Siddapur
\nand  is connected with certain other  educational  societies
\nand  banks.  He says that by sincere and selfless work\tdone
\nin  these  institutions he has acquired a  high\t status\t and
\nposition in the society and that though he is the cousin  of
\nShri  Ramakrishna  Hegde,  the\tformer\tChief  Minister\t  of
\nKarnataka,  he is not associated with his  political  party.
\nAccording  to the complainant, the first  respondent-accused
\nis an active politician.  During the relevant period, he was
\nthe  President of a political party -called  ‘Kranthiranga’.
\nThe first respondent aspired to become the Chief Minister of
\nKarnataka  but\the  was frustrated in his  efforts  by\tShri
\nRamakrishna Hegde who became the Chief Minister.  The  first
\nrespondent  was,  therefore, waiting for an  opportunity  to
\ntarnish\t  the  image  of  Shri\tRamakrishna   Hegde.\tShri
\nRamakrishna Hegde contested to the Legislative Assembly from
\nKanakapura  Constituency.  The first respondent\t set-up\t his
\ncandidate against Shri Hegde.  In the course of the election
\ncampaign,  the first respondent held a press  conference  on
\nApril 28, 1983 at his residence at Bangalore.  Respondents 2
\nand 3 who are the Editor and Chief Reporter respectively  of
\nthe  newspaper “Samyukta Karnataka”, a daily, also  attended
\nthe press conference.  The first respondent made  scandalous
\nand  false  imputations against the complainant\t during\t the
\nsaid  press conference and requested the  correspondents  to
\npublish\t the  same in their newspapers.\t The  news  item  as
\npublished  in  “Samyukta  Karnataka”  daily  (in  its  Hubli
\nedition) reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Involvement   of\t Hegde’s  Brother  in\tRice
\n\t      smuggling’?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      129<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “Bangalore   –   28,  Sri\t  S.Bangarappa\t the
\n\t      President\t  of  Kanriataka  Krantiranga,\t has
\n\t      accused  to  day\tthat Sri  Ganesh  Hegde\t the
\n\t      brother of the Chief Minister Sri\t Ramakrishna
\n\t      hegde  is\t involving in smuggling of  rice  to
\n\t      Goa.   Talking at a press conference, he\tsaid
\n\t      that  the\t authorities are not dared  to\ttake
\n\t      action  against  the  mill  owner\t Sri  Ganesh
\n\t      Hegde.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t(Translation from Kannada)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
6.   The  complainant submitted that the said imputation  is
\nfalse to the knowledge of the first respondent and was\tmade
\nwith  intention\t to defame and harm the\t reputation  of\t the
\ncomplainant.   The allegation of smuggling of  rice  leveled
\nagainst\t the  complainant is absolutely false and  that\t the
\nsaid false news item has lowered the prestige and reputation
\nof the complainant and his family in the eyes of the public.
\nHis  case is that he is not the brother of Shri\t Ramakrishna
\nHegde as made out in the news item but only a cousin.\n<\/p>\n
7.   The  learned counsel for the appellants submitted\tthat
\nthe   framing  of  charge  by  the  Magistrate\tis   neither
\nmisdirected  in\t law nor can it be said that  there  was  no
\nevidence  before  him  upon which he could  have  formed  an
\nopinion that there is ground for presuming that the  accused
\nhas  committed\tthe offence within the\tmeaning\t of  Section
\n246(1).\t The learned Magistrate, it is submitted, considered
\nthe  oral and documentary evidence, the decisions  cited  by
\nboth  the  sides  and under a reasoned\torder  rejected\t the
\nobjections  raised  by the first respondent and\t framed\t the
\ncharge.\t  The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the  Revision
\nfiled  by  the\tfirst respondent holding  that\tthe  learned
\nMagistrate has acted properly and in accordance with law  in
\nframing\t the  charge  and  that there  are  no\tgrounds\t for
\ninterfering with his orders.  A second Revision does not lie
\nunder the code, and though an application under Section\t 482
\nof  the Code of Criminal Procedure is not barred,  the\tHigh
\nCourt  cannot  sit and act as the  second  Revisional  Court
\nwhile  exercising  the\tpowers\tunder  Section\t482.\tThis
\nprovision  can\tbe invoked only where there is an  abuse  of
\nprocess of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
\nLearned counsel complained that the learned Single Judge has
\nexamined  the  matter as if he were an appellate  court\t and
\nquashed the charge on that approach and that he has exceeded
\nhis  jurisdiction  in  doing so and  in\t interfering  at  an
\ninterlocutory stage.\n<\/p>\n
8.   Shri Sheshagiri Rao, the learned counsel for the  first
\nrespondent  justified  the reasoning and conclusion  of\t the
\nlearned\t Single Judge.\tHe submitted that the  complaint  is
\nthe  result of political vendetta, that it is not a  genuine
\ngrievance  and that the first respondent was not acting\t out
\nof any extraneous motives in making the statement complained
\nof.  Learned counsel submitted that the first respondent  is
\nan  active politician, that subsequently he has also  become
\nthe  Chief Minister of Karnataka and that he made the  said-
\nstatement  under  the bonafide belief that it is  true.\t  He
\nmade  the said statement, submitted the learned counsel,  in
\ngood faith and in public interest.  The first respondent was
\nnot  actuated  by any motives of personal gain\tor  personal
\nanimosity.  Learned counsel further submitted that the\tsaid
\npublication  was  in the year 1983, that twelve\t years\thave
\npassed\tby  since  then and that any  interference  at\tthis
\ndistance  of time may not be called for in the interests  of
\njustice.\n<\/p>\n
9.   the complaint has been tried, it is
\n130<\/span>
\nstated,\t according to the warrant procedure, at the  request
\nof  the\t first\trespondent.  Section  244(1)  provides\tthat
\n“(W)hen, in any warrant-case instituted otherwise than on  a
\npolice\treport, the accused appears or is brought  before  a
\nMagistrate,  the  MagistratE  shall  proceed  to  hear\t the
\nprosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in
\nsupport of the prosecution.” SeCtion 245(1) says that “(1)f,
\nupon taking all the evidence referred to in section 244, the
\nMagistrate  considers, for reasons to be recorded,  that  no
\ncase  against  the  accused  has been  made  out  which,  if
\nunrebutted,  would  warrant his conviction,  the  Magistrate
\nshall  discharge him.” Section 246(1) then says “(1)f,\twhen
\nsuch  evidence has been taken, or at any previous  stage  of
\nthe case, the magistrate is of opinion that there is  ground
\nfor presuming that the accused has committed an offence tri-
\nable under this Chapter, which such magistrate is  competent
\nto  try,  and  which, in his opinion,  could  be  adequately
\npunished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge  against
\nthe accused.  ”\n<\/p>\n
10.  Section  399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure  confers
\nupon  the Sessions Judge the power to revise any order\tmade
\nby  the Magistrate but sub-section (3) thereof\tdeclares  at
\nthe same time that “(W)here any application for revision  is
\nmade  by  or  on behalf of any person  before  the  Sessions
\nJudge,\tthe  decision  of  the\tSessions  Judge\t thereon  in
\nrelation  to  such  person shall be  final  and\t no  further
\nproceedings  by\t way  of revision at the  instance  of\tsuch
\nperson\tshall be entertained by the High Court or any  other
\nCourt.”\n<\/p>\n
11.  Section  482 of the Code saves the inherent  powers  of
\nthe High Court.\t It reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “482.  Saving of inherent powers of High Court\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      –\t Nothing  in this Code shall  be  deemed  to
\n\t      limit  or\t affect the inherent powers  of\t the
\n\t      High  Court  to  make such orders\t as  may  be
\n\t      necessary\t to give effect to any\torder  under
\n\t      this Code, or to prevent abuse of the  process
\n\t      of  any Court or otherwise to secure the\tends
\n\t      ofjustice.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
12.While  it  is  true that availing of the  remedy  of\t the
\nrevision  to the Sessions Judge under Section 399  does\t not
\nbar a person from invoking the power of the High Court under
\nSection\t 482, it is equally true that the High Court  should
\nnot  act  as  a second Revisional Court under  the  garb  of
\nexercising  inherent powers.  While exercising its  inherent
\npowers\tin  such a matter it must be conscious of  the\tfact
\nthat the learned Sessions Judge has declined to exercise his
\nrevisory  power\t in  the  matter.   The\t High  Court  should
\ninterfere  only where it is satisfied that if the  complaint
\nis allowed to be proceeded with, it would amount to abuse of
\nprocess of Court or that the interests of justice  otherwise
\ncall  for quashing of the charges.  A few decisions of\tthis
\nCourt\tmay  usefully  be  referred  at\t this\tstage.\t  In
\nMrs.Dhanalakshmi  v.  R.Prasanna  Kumar\t &  Ors.  (AIR<\/a>\t1990
\nS.C.494) this Court stated in a case of similar nature:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
\n\t      empowers\tthe  High  Court  to  exercise\t its
\n\t      inherent\tpowers\tto  prevent  abuse  of\t the
\n\t      process  of Court.  In proceedings  instituted
\n\t      on complaint exercise of the inherent power to
\n\t      quash  the proceedings is called for  only  in
\n\t      cases  where the complaint does  not  disclose
\n\t      any  offence  or is  frivolous,  vexatious  or
\n\t      oppressive.  If the allegations set out in the
\n\t      complaint\t do  not constitute the\t offence  of
\n\t      which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it
\n\t      is open to the High Court to quash
\n\t      131<\/span>
\n\t      the  same in exercise of the  inherent  powers
\n\t      under  Section  482.   It\t is  not,   however,
\n\t      necessary\t that there should be  a  meticulous
\n\t      analysis of the case, before the trial to find
\n\t      out  whether the case would end in  conviction
\n\t      or  not.\t The complaint has to be read  as  a
\n\t      whole.   If it appears on a  consideration  of
\n\t      the allegations, in the light of the statement
\n\t      on oath of the complainant that ingredients of
\n\t      the offence\/ offences are disclosed, and there
\n\t      is  no material to show that the complaint  is
\n\t      mala  fide  frivolous or\tvexatious,  in\tthat
\n\t      event  there  would be  no  justification\t for
\n\t      interference by the High Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      The  High Court without proper application  of
\n\t      the  principles  that have been laid  down  by
\n\t      this Court in Sharda Prasad Sinha v. State  of
\n\t      Bihar, (1977) 2 SCR 357 : (AIR 1977 SC  1754),
\n\t      Trilok  Singh v. Satya Deo Tripathi,<\/a> 1980\t Cri
\n\t      LJ  822: AIR 1979 SC 850 and Municipal  Corpn.
\n\t      of Delhi v. Purshotam Dass Jhunjunwala,<\/a> (1983)
\n\t      1\t SCR  895: (AIR 1983 SC\t 158)  proceeded  to
\n\t      analyse  the  case of the complainant  in\t the
\n\t      light  of\t all the probabilities in  order  to
\n\t      determine\t  whether  a  conviction  would\t  be
\n\t      sustainable and on such premises arrived at  a
\n\t      conclusion  that\tthe proceedings\t are  to  be
\n\t      quashed against all the respondents.  The High
\n\t      Court  was clearly in error in  assessing\t the
\n\t      material\tbefore\tit and concluding  that\t the
\n\t      complaint\t cannot be proceeded with.  We\tfind
\n\t      there  are  specific allegations in  the\tcom-
\n\t      plaint  disclosing the ingredients of the\t of-
\n\t      fence  taken  cognizance of.  It\tis  for\t the
\n\t      complainant to substantiate the allegations by
\n\t      evidence at a later stage.  In the absence  of
\n\t      circumstances  to\t hold prima facie  that\t the
\n\t      complaint is frivolous when the complaint does
\n\t      disclose the commission of an offence there is
\n\t      no   justification  for  the  High  Court\t  to
\n\t      interfere.  ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
13.\t To  the  same\teffect is  the\tholding\t in  another
\ndecision  in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan &\t Ors.<\/a>  (1988
\n(4) S.C.C.655). This Court said:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  is trite that jurisdiction under  Section
\n\t      482,  Cr.P.C., which saves the inherent  power
\n\t      of the High Court, to make such orders as\t may
\n\t      be  necessary to prevent abuse of the  process
\n\t      of  any Court or otherwise to secure the\tends
\n\t      of justice, has to be exercised sparingly\t and
\n\t      with   circumspection.   In  exercising\tthat
\n\t      jurisdiction the High Court should not  embark
\n\t      upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the
\n\t      complaint\t are  likely to\t be  established  by
\n\t      evidence or not.\tThat is the function of\t the
\n\t      trial  Magistrate\t when  the  evidence   comes
\n\t      before him, Though it is neither possible\t nor
\n\t      advisable to lay down any inflexible rules  to
\n\t      regulate\t that\tjurisdiction,\tone   thing,
\n\t      however, appears clear and it is that when the
\n\t      High  Court  is called upon to  exercise\tthis
\n\t      jurisdiction  to\tquash a\t proceeding  at\t the
\n\t      stage  of the Magistrate taking cognizance  of
\n\t      an  offence  the High Court is guided  by\t the
\n\t      allegations,  whether those  allegations,\t set
\n\t      out  in the complaint or the charge-sheet,  do
\n\t      not in law constitute or spell out any offence
\n\t      and that resort to criminal proceedings would,
\n\t      in the circumstances amount to an abuse of the
\n\t      process of the court or not.  ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14.  Examined from the above stand point,it would be evident
\nthat  the learned Single Judge of the High Court has  really
\ngone  beyond  the  purview of Section 482  in  quashing\t the
\ncharge.\t  He has not held that the evidence adduced  by\t the
\ncomplainant, oral and documentary, if unrebutted, would\t not
\nhave  warranted\t the conviction of the\taccused\t within\t the
\nmeaning\t of  Section  245(1) nor has he\t held  that  on\t the
\nevidence  adduced,  the learned Magistrate  could  not\thave
\nreasonably  formed  an\topinion that  there  is\t ground\t for
\npresuming that the accused has committed an offence, as
\n132<\/span>
\ncontemplated by Section 246(1).\t The learned counsel for the
\nrespondent  has laid great stress upon the  observations  of
\nthe learned Magistrate in para 26 of his order, which reads:
\n“A.   1 has challenged the evidence of all  these  witnesses
\ngenerally  and more particularly of the evidence of  P.W.  1
\nthe  complainant.   In\tmy  opinion,  at  this\tstage,\t the
\nevidentiary  value  of the documents  and  creditability  of
\nwitnesses  cannot  be  considered in  view  of\tthe  settled
\nprinciples by Supreme Court of India in the decisions  cited
\nsupra.\t All the contentions advanced on behalf\t of  accused
\npersons,  could be weighed at the time of final disposal  of
\nthe  matter.  Therefore I am rather constrained\t to  refrain
\nfrom  examining\t any of the contentions\t canvassed  for\t the
\naccused\t or  considering  the repercussions  made  of  cross
\nexamination  of witnesses, lest any observations made by  me
\nmay  prejudice either of the parties at the time  of  trial.
\nFurther the evidence referred to in Section 245, relates  to
\nevidence  before  charge.   Therefore I do  not\t propose  to
\nexamine\t any  of  the contentions urged for  accused  No.  1
\nduring the course of arguments and about the decisions cited
\nat the Bar on behalf of accused persons.”\n<\/p>\n
15.  The   learned   counsel  contended\t  that\t the   above
\nobservations  indicate that the learned Magistrate  has\t not
\napplied his mind to the evidence before him at all and\tthat
\nhe has mechanically framed the charge.\tWe do not think that
\nthe  learned counsel is right.\tThe said  observations\twere
\nmade  by  the  learned\tMagistrate  with  reference  to\t the
\ndecision of the Supreme Court in Akbar Dar v. State of Jammu
\nand  Kashmir<\/a>  (1982  SCC  (Criminal)  148)  referred  to  in
\npreceding  para 21 and should not be read in  isolation.   A
\nreading\t of the order does show that the learned  Magistrate
\nhas  considered the oral and documentary evidence at  length
\nand finally expressed his opinion in paragraph 30 thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “On going through the evidence adduced  before
\n\t      court by the complainant at this stage.  I  am
\n\t      of  the  considered opinion that\tthere  exist
\n\t      grounds  to frame charge against A.1 to 3\t for
\n\t      the  offence  punishable U\/S.  500  I.P.C.  In
\n\t      coming  to  conclusion that charge  should  be
\n\t      framed  against  A- 1 to 3, I  should  not  be
\n\t      understood  that I have expressed any  opinion
\n\t      if made by me during the course of discussions
\n\t      will not come in the way of either parties  at
\n\t      the  final  disposal of the  case\t on  merits.
\n\t      Therefore,  for  these reasons, I\t answer\t the
\n\t      point in the ‘AFFIRMATIVE’.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
16. The learned Sessions Judge who examined the order of the
\nlearned Magistrate has also expressed the opinion that since
\nthe   magistrate   has\tframed\tthe  charge  on\t  a   proper
\nconsideration  of  oral\t and  documentary  evidence  and  on
\nforming\t the  requisite opinion, no interference  is  called
\nfor.  As against this, the judgment of the High Court  shows
\nthat  it  has  entered\tinto the  merits  of  the  case\t and
\npronounced  upon the truth and correctness of the  complaint
\nand  the  defence, as would be evident\tfrom  the  following
\nobservations:\n<\/p>\n
In  Para 23 the learned Judge states that the oral  evidence
\nshould\thave been considered alongwith the documentary\tevi-
\ndence and that if that had been done, the learned magistrate
\nwould  have came to the conclusion that the imputation\tmade
\nby  the accused is “neither intentional nor it\tamounted  in
\nlowering the reputation of the complainant in the estimation
\nof general public and the context in which such a  statement
\nwas  made.”  In Para 24 the learned Judge  states  that\t the
\ncourts below<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Shri Ganesh Narayan Hegde vs Shri S. Bangarappa And Ors on 20 April, 1995 Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC (4) 41, JT 1995 (4) 124 Author: B Jeevan Reddy Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) PETITIONER: SHRI GANESH NARAYAN HEGDE Vs. RESPONDENT: SHRI S. BANGARAPPA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT20\/04\/1995 BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-64093","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Ganesh Narayan Hegde vs Shri S. Bangarappa And Ors on 20 April, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Ganesh Narayan Hegde vs Shri S. Bangarappa And Ors on 20 April, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1995-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-17T13:18:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Ganesh Narayan Hegde vs Shri S. Bangarappa And Ors on 20 April, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-17T13:18:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995\"},\"wordCount\":3356,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995\",\"name\":\"Shri Ganesh Narayan Hegde vs Shri S. Bangarappa And Ors on 20 April, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-17T13:18:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Ganesh Narayan Hegde vs Shri S. Bangarappa And Ors on 20 April, 1995\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shri Ganesh Narayan Hegde vs Shri S. Bangarappa And Ors on 20 April, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Ganesh Narayan Hegde vs Shri S. Bangarappa And Ors on 20 April, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-17T13:18:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Ganesh Narayan Hegde vs Shri S. Bangarappa And Ors on 20 April, 1995","datePublished":"1995-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-17T13:18:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995"},"wordCount":3356,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995","name":"Shri Ganesh Narayan Hegde vs Shri S. Bangarappa And Ors on 20 April, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-17T13:18:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-ganesh-narayan-hegde-vs-shri-s-bangarappa-and-ors-on-20-april-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Ganesh Narayan Hegde vs Shri S. Bangarappa And Ors on 20 April, 1995"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64093","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=64093"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64093\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64093"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64093"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64093"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}