Javed Khalid petitioner was convicted by the trial Magistrate under sections 500 and 471 read with section 109, P. P. C. And sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 on the first count and six months' R. I.
Under the second. The petitioner challenged his convictions and sentences by filing an appeal which was dismissed by an Additional Sessions Judge at Lahore vide his judgment dated 8-1-1978.
Hence this revision petition.
2. Normally, in criminal revision, the evidence is not discussed because that is a matter for the Courts below. But in this case I think it is necessary to deal with the relevant evidence available on record.
The petitioner was prosecuted on a 'complaint filed by his better-half. This was under sections 469 and 500, P. P. C. The allegation against the petitioner was that---- After recording preliminary evidence, the trial Magistrate summoned the petitioner to face trial.
3. I have perused the complaint and gone through the evidence. In the complaint, the allegation pertaining to section 471, P. P. C. Is only to the following effect :- The other document is the medical certificate (Exh. P. B.) sent by the petitioner along with the notice of divorce to the Chairman. The petitioner denied that the medical certificate was forged.
Nevertheless he admitted in his statement that he did obtain that. It is thus obvious that in order to substantiate the allegation of forged certificate and to obtain the conviction on its basis, it was the duty of the prosecution to prove the same to be forged. This the prosecution has failed to do. I am, therefore, of the view that the conviction under the aforesaid charge is not legally maintainable and the same is accordingly set aside.
4. This leaves me to examine as to whether the petitioner has rightly been convicted under section 500, P. P. C. The material on the basis of which the petitioner was prosecuted for this offence is the notice of divorce which contained the following wording :- The Chairman declined to dissolve marriage for the reason that the petitioner had not been able to substantiate the aforesaid allegations against his wife. Hence the question for determination is as to whether the above grounds come within the ambit of section 50J, P. P. C. If .Not, then the con-- viction shall have to be set aside.
I have no hesitation in observing that the allegations that the petitioner never got peace of mind and that his better-half was of `loose tongue' by no stretch of imagination come within the purview of section 500, P. P. C. These things may at the most show that the spouses were not getting on well and were not leading happy domestic life. The only serious allegation is that. This was one of the grounds taken by the petitioner for divorce. The Chairman did not accept it meaning thereby that there was no substance in the same which in turn does not give any cause of grievance -to the respondent with regard to her personality and character.
Generally speaking, in proceedings for dissolution of marriage such grounds which reflect on the character of the spouses are usually taken and are permissible under the law. However, this does not mean that either o the spouses has a licence to defame the other. It is the duty of the Court to examine such a plea or ground, to read in-between the lines and to make sure this is not done maliciously. It is thus obvious that malice whether express or implied would be one of the important ingredients to secure con--viction under section 500, P. P. C.
Even otherwise, the petitioner's case falls within Eighth Exception to section 499, P. P. C. Relating to defamation which reads as under :-- "It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation."
5. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the petitioner's con--viction under section 500, P.
P. C. Is not legally maintainable. Accordingly I allow the petition, set aside the conviction of the petitioner on both count, and acquit him.