NEELAM MAHENDRA ARYA and ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and ANR.

                                                                Cri-REVN. APPLN-70-2003 C2.doc



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         REVISION APPLICATION NO. 70 OF 2003
                      1.Smt. Neelam Mahendra Arya,
                      Aged 45 years, Occ: Business.

NAVNATH               2. Shri Mahindra Arya,
SITARAM               Aged 48 years, Occ: Business,
WAGHMARE              Both Nos. 1 & 2 residing at B/502,
Digitally signed by
                      Kukreja Estate, Sector 11, CBD Belapur,
NAVNATH
SITARAM               Navi Mumbai- 400 604.                                    ... Applicants
WAGHMARE
Date: 2026.09.17
                                 Versus
18:19:55 +0530
                      1.The State of Maharashtra.

                      2. Smt Sunita Yashodhan Mandrekar,
                      Adult, residing at C/5, A-2, 3, Sarvodaya Society,
                      Khanda Colony, Sector-8, New Panvel,
                      Dist -Raigad.                                      ...Respondents
                                                         ****
                      Mr. Advait Tamhankar (through VC) for the Applicants, appointed
                      through Legal Aid.
                      Ms. Sharmila Kaushik, APP for the State/Respondent No.1.
                      Mr. Kunjan Makwana i/b Mr. Ganesh Gole for the Respondent No.2.
                                                         ****
                                                 CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                     DATE : 17th SEPTEMBER, 2026
                      JUDGMENT :

                      1.          By this Criminal Revision Application, Accused Nos.2 and 3
                      are challenging the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2002 passed by
                      the IInd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad, at Alibag in Criminal
                      appeal No. 17 of 2001 by which their appeal is partly allowed,
                      maintaining the conviction but modifying the sentence. Offence
                      involved is under Section 500 read with 34 of the Indian Penal
                      Code,1860 ('IPC' for short).




                      Navnath Waghmare                                                           1
                                           Cri-REVN. APPLN-70-2003 C2.doc



                                   BACKGROUND

2.          The Respondent No.2 is the Complainant, who filed complaint
contending inter alia as under.

2.1     That Accused No. 1 - Smt. Kamalesh Gandhi is divorced wife of
one Mr. Shammi Gandhi and there was dispute between the couple.
That Accused Nos. 2 and 3 (Aryas) are husband and wife and they have
close relations with the family of Accused No. 1 (Gandhis).

2.2.    That Accused No. 1 to 3 in collusion published defamatory news
against the Complainant on 16.05.1998 in local newspaper by name
'Dhavate Navnagar' for lowering the reputation of the Complainant.
That Accused Nos. 1 to 3 supplied the information of defamatory news
to Accused No. 4- editor of the said newspaper, which was printed by
Accused No. 5- Printer.

2.3.    That without ascertaining the truth, the news published was
about alleged illicit relation of the Complainant with husband of
Accused No. 1 i.e. Mr. Shammi Gandhi and that reputation of the
Complainant was lost. That she suffered from mental and physical
agony. That her husband took divorce from the Complainant and her
family got ruined.

2.4.    That the Complainant had visited the Kalamboli Police Station
many times and made oral complaints but no cognizance was taken and
therefore she gave complaint in writing to the Police Commissioner on
15.03.1999.

3.          Defence of the Revision Applicants is that it was only Accused
No. 1 who furnished information for publishing news and it was not
done by Revision Applicants. That there was no ill-motive. That they are
in no way connected to publication of news.

Navnath Waghmare                                                            2
                                           Cri-REVN. APPLN-70-2003 C2.doc



4.          The Complainant examined herself as PW-1, Police constable
Mr. Ashok Pawar as PW-2 who produced NC register and Mr. Satyavan
Jadhav, who had accompanied her to office of news paper as PW-3. The
Accused No.4- Editor of the daily newspaper examined himself for
Accused nos. 4 & 5. Revision Applicants did not examine themselves.

5.          The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panvel who heard and
tried the case (Summary Criminal Case No. 660 of 1999), convicted
the Accused Nos. 2 to 5, including (present Revision Applicants) for the
offence punishable under Section 500 read with 34 of the IPC and
sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment (‘SI’ for short) for 15
days and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default to suffer SI for 5
days. Out of the fine amount, amount of Rs. 1,000/- from each accused,
was directed to paid to the Complainant as compensation.

6.          The Revision Applicants (Accused Nos. 2 and 3) filed Criminal
Appeal No. 17 of 2001. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 (Editor and Printer) filed
Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2001.

7.          Both these appeals were heard together by learned II nd Ad-hoc
Addl. Sessions Judge, Raigad, and by the impugned Judgment and
Order, the appeals were partly allowed. Conviction is maintained, but
the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment of 15 days, is set aside.
Accused Nos. 2 to 5 were directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in
default to suffer SI of 5 months. Out of the fine amount, Rs.2,500/-
from each of the accused, was directed to be paid to the Complainant as
compensation.

8.          This revision application was admitted on 10.03.2003. Since
nobody was attending the matter, on 07.11.2025, High Court Legal Aid




Navnath Waghmare                                                            3
                                           Cri-REVN. APPLN-70-2003 C2.doc



Authority was directed to appoint an advocate for the Applicants to
espouse their cause.

                                   SUBMISSIONS

9.          Learned counsel for the Applicants submitted as under:

9.1.    That the case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence, which
does not prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

9.2.    That there is delay of 10 months in lodging the complaint, which
is not explained. That the alleged offence is non-cognizable and
therefore the explanation that ‘police were not taking cognizance’
cannot be considered.

9.3.    That Accused No. 4 (Editor) has clearly stated in his evidence
that information was given by Accused No. 1 and therefore present
Revision Applicants have no role to play. That the Revision Applicants
had no motive.

10.         On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2,
(Original Complainant) submitted as under.

10.1 That the letter allegedly given by the Accused No.1 (information
about news), is not produced on record. That the Complainant was
working as Estate Agent and there was business rivalry between her and
the Revision Applicants.

10.2. That the Revision Applicants have not entered the witness box
and only Accused No. 4 has entered the witness box.

10.3. That there is no explanation for printing the defamatory article in
banner line with 60 font size, clearly showing motive.




Navnath Waghmare                                                            4
                                          Cri-REVN. APPLN-70-2003 C2.doc



10.4. That the delay is correctly considered by the Courts below and no
interference is required.

10.5. That there was no effort made by Accused No. 4 to correct the
alleged mistake in the affidavit filed in the civil suit stating names of
Revision Applicants providing information for the news.

                            REASONS AND CONCLUSION

11.         I have considered the rival submissions and perused the
impugned order and oral evidence of Accused No. 4 as shown by the
learned counsel for both sides.

12.         It appears that the news article referred the Complainant as
concubine / keep of one Mr. Shammi Gandhi, who is the husband of the
Accused No.1. There is a reference in the news about incident of
catching the Complainant and Mr. Shammi Gandhi red-handed in
naked/compromising position in the residential flat of Mr. Shammi
Gandhi. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly held that ex-facie the
news was defamatory.

13.         The argument about delay in filing the Complaint is
considered by the Appeal Court holding that after the publication was
done, nothing was left for the Complainant to concoct any further and
therefore, there is no possibility of making allegations as an after
thought.

14.         The Appeal Court has considered that the Complainant has
stated in her evidence that defamatory news was published on the basis
of information supplied by Accused Nos. 1 to 3. Written statement and
affidavit of Accused No.4-Editor, in civil case - Special Civil Suit No.
6/1998 was produced on record where Accused No.4 has made
categorical statement that information for publishing news was given by


Navnath Waghmare                                                           5
                                           Cri-REVN. APPLN-70-2003 C2.doc



Accused Nos. 1 to 3. The Appeal Court has considered that Accused
No.4 has tried to put forth a new case that Accused Nos. 2 and 3 had
not supplied information. The Appeal Court has found that the
subsequent conduct of Accused No.4 (stating in his evidence in present
criminal trial that Accused Nos. 2 & 3 did not supply information) is
nothing but an effort to save Accused No.2 & 3 and is not believable.

15.         The Appeal Court has considered that Accused No.4, for
escaping civil liability, under the civil suit, had published an apology. It
has come on record the apology was published in small font and on the
back page of the newspaper, while defamatory news was printed as
banner line with big font.

16.         So far as the argument about his statement that the letter was
given to him for publication in the newspaper by Accused No.1
Kamalesh Gandhi only, I have perused the oral evidence of Accused No.
4. It is material to note that this witness has admitted in cross-
examination that he has not made any efforts for the clarification about
earlier statement involving names of Revision Applicants. He has also
admitted that he has not filed any further affidavit in the civil case
stating that his earlier statement was given under coercion or it was
false.

17.         The Appeal Court has considered that the Accused Nos. 2 and
3 were the friends of Accused No.1 and were helping her. After
considering the fact that litigation was pending between the
Complainant and her husband even prior to publication of the news and
also that litigation was pending against Accused No.1 and her husband
as also that Revision Applicants were friends of Accused No. 1, the
appeal Court has held that Trial Court was harsh in sentencing



Navnath Waghmare                                                            6
                                            Cri-REVN. APPLN-70-2003 C2.doc



substantive sentence of imprisonment and has already set it aside, only
enhancing the fine amount.

18.         In State Vs. Manimaran      (2019) 13 SCC 670, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under:

                   "16. As held in State of Kerala V. Puttumana Illath
                   Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC 452, ordinarily
                   it would not be appropriate for the High Court to
                   reappreciate the evidence and come to its own
                   conclusion on the same when the evidence has
                   already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well
                   as by the Sessions Court in appeal. When the courts
                   below recorded the concurrent findings of fact, in
                   our view, the High Court was not right in interfering
                   with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the
                   courts below and the impugned order cannot be
                   sustained."
                                                  (emphasis supplied)
19.         Therefore, it is not possible to re-appreciate the evidence and
to come to a contrary finding. The Magistrate as well as the Sessions
Judge has concurrently convicted the Revision Applicants. The
substantive sentence of simple imprisonment is already set aside under
the impugned order. Overall, the view taken by the Appeal Court can
not be faulted.

20.         In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for reasons
indicated above, there is no reason to interfere with concurrent
findings.

21.         Revision Application is dismissed. Rule is discharged.


                                                 (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)


Navnath Waghmare                                                             7