Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench

Order Date: 07 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Applicant: Suresh Ambarnath Londhe; Respondents: State of Maharashtra and complainant Bhaskar Nimba Amrutsagar.
  • Dispute stemmed from an international Buddhist conference (20‑21 Feb 2010) where Londhe, as Chief Coordinator and District Level President of Buddhist Society of India, allegedly defamed the complainant by alleging fraud of Rs 25.75 crore through letters, tents, pamphlets, and media.
  • Complainant filed S.T.C. No. 760/2011 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Dhule; trial court convicted Londhe under IPC section 500 (defamation) on 24 April 2015.
  • Londhe appealed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule (Cr. Appeal No. 41/2015); appeal dismissed on 13 July 2018.
  • Londhe filed a criminal revision under Section 397 CrPC, arguing the trial was a summary trial and the successor magistrate could not rely on evidence recorded in substance.

Legal Submissions

  • Applicant’s counsel cited Sections 263‑264 CrPC, asserting only the substance of evidence should have been recorded and a de novo trial was required after the presiding magistrate’s transfer.
  • Respondent’s counsel contended the evidence was recorded in full, with detailed cross‑examination, making the case a regular summons trial.
  • Both sides relied on precedents including J. V. Baharuni v. State of Gujarat and Ullas v. State of Maharashtra.

Court’s Reasoning

  • The bench examined deposition copies and found witnesses were examined in detail and evidence was recorded fully, not merely in substance.
  • Consequently, the trial was held to be a regular summons trial, not a summary trial, rendering Section 326(1) CrPC applicable; the successor magistrate could rely on the recorded evidence.
  • The court noted that once evidence is recorded by a competent magistrate, it retains its evidentiary character.

Final Outcome

  • The revision application is dismissed; the conviction and sentence under IPC section 500 stand affirmed.

Topics: Defamation, Criminal Revision