The court dismissed the lawsuit once morest Yuthapong Klom Ruangkrai, filed a lawsuit once morest the theft of royal rice. pointing without intent to bully
On April 17, reporters reported that from the case Mr. Ruangkrai Leekitwattana A former member of the Palang Pracharath Party (PPC) at that time was a committee member (CDC) Extraordinary Bill (Act) Budget Expenditures for the Fiscal Year 2022 as a plaintiff filed a lawsuit. Mr. Yuthaphong Jaratsathien A Maha Sarakham MP and the deputy leader of the Pheu Thai Party (PAD) are the defendants following accusing Ruangkrai of stealing rice at the parliament.
On the 10th of April last the court has a verdict dismiss Due to the posting of messages and photos caused by the defendant seeing the plaintiff eating in the Parliamentary Dining room. Which in front of the restaurant said that “SAFE ZONE only members of parliament, no followers” is a message that makes it understandable that the plaintiff who was not a member of Parliament at that time There is no right to dine in this restaurant.
and when considering the minutes of the House of Representatives Which held a meeting on August 21, 2021, it can be seen that the defendant intended only to clarify that the plaintiff’s action was a violation of the rules and regulations of the Council. and the defendant wishes to have a reduction in the budget for food for certifying members of the House of Representatives which the defendant saw that there was a leak because a person who is not a member of Parliament comes to eat by relying on the budget in this section
Although the defendant’s statements and opinions are somewhat sarcastic to the plaintiff. But it was to expedite the investigation of such cases. and to protect the public interest Without appearing that the defendant had the intention of bullying the plaintiff. or with the intent to conjure up an unfounded slander of the plaintiff Therefore, it is an act in good faith. criticism with fairness which a person who is the nature of the people would do which is an exception to the offense of defamation
The defendant is not guilty of defamation. According to the Criminal Code, Section 239 (3), the plaintiff’s case is therefore unfounded. dismissal
Read related news.
