Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.199(2) and (4) – Prosecution case that appellant made defamatory statements against the Hon’ble Chief Minister of the State in a press conference – Complaint was filed by the public prosecutor u/s.199(2) after receipt of sanction from the Competent Authority of the State Government on the very same day – Appellant convicted u/s.500 IPC by the Special Judge, trial Court – Appeal against the same pending before the High Court – Appellant also challenged the maintainability of criminal proceeding instituted u/s.199(2), which was dismissed by the High Court – On appeal, held: None of the allegedly defamatory statements, even if admitted to have been made by the appellant, can be said to have any reasonable connection with discharge of public duties by or the office of the Hon’ble Chief Minister – Such statements may be defamatory but then in the absence of a nexus between the same and the discharge of public duties, the remedy u/s.199(2) and (4) Cr.P.C. will not be available – From extract of cross-examination of the public prosecutor, it is clear that the public prosecutor had admitted the absence of any scrutiny by him of the materials on which the prosecution was sought to be launched – Public Prosecutor further, admitted that he had filed complaint against the accused appellant on the orders of the State Government – A Public Prosecutor filing a complaint u/s. 199 (2) Cr.P.C. without due satisfaction that the materials/allegations in complaint discloses an offence against an Authority or against a public functionary which adversely affects the interests of the State would be abhorrent to the principles on the basis of which the special provision u/s.199(2) and (4) Cr.P.C. has been structured – Therefore, complaint not maintainable – Consequently, order of the trial Court set aside and appeal pending in the High Court also closed – Penal Code, 1860 – s.500 – Constitution of India – Art. 142. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. If the allegedly defamatory statements, in respect of which sanction has been accorded to the Public Prosecutor to file the complaint against the appellant under Section 199 (2) Cr.P.C. by the order of the State Government are to be carefully looked into, none of the said statements, even if admitted to have been made by the appellant, can be said to have any reasonable connection with the discharge of public duties by or the office of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. The appointment of persons from the area/place to which the wife of the Hon’ble Chief Minister belongs and the making of phone calls by the relatives of the Hon’ble Chief Minister have no reasonable nexus with the discharge of public duties by or the office of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. Such statements may be defamatory but then in the absence of a nexus between the same and the discharge of public duties of the office,the remedy under Section 199(2) and 199(4) Cr.P.C. will not be available.It is the remedy saved by the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 199 Cr.P.C. i.e. a complaint by the Hon’ble Chief Minister before the ordinary Court i.e. the Court of Magistrate which would be available and could have been resorted to. [Para 11] [321-G-H; 322-A-C]
2. From the cross-examination of the Public Prosecutor, it is clear that the Public prosecutor had admitted the absence of any scrutiny by him of the materials on which the prosecution is sought to be launched. In fact, the Public Prosecutor had gone to the extent of admitting that he had filed the complaint against the accused appellant on the orders of the State Government. [Para 13] [323-A-B]
3. The testimony of the Public Prosecutor in his crossexamination effectively demonstrates that the wholesome requirement spelt out by Section 199(2) and 199(4) Cr.P.C., as expounded by this Court in Subramanian Swamy, has not been complied with in the present case. A Public Prosecutor filing a complaint under Section 199 (2) Cr.P.C. without due satisfaction that the materials/allegations in complaint discloses an offence against an Authority or against a public functionary which adversely affects the interests of the State would be abhorrent to the principles on the basis of which the special provision under Section 199(2) and 199(4) Cr.P.C. has been structured as held by this Court in P.C. Joshi and Subramanian Swamy. The public prosecutor in terms of the statutory scheme under the Criminal Procedure Code plays an important role. He is supposed to be an independent person and apply his mind to the materials placed before him. [Para 14] [324-A-D]
4. In the present case, the press meet was convened by the appellant. After few days, the government accorded sanction to the public prosecutor to file complaint under Section 500 IPC against the appellant. As seen from the records, the complaint was filed by the public prosecutor against the appellant on the very same day. The haste with which the complaint was filed prima facie indicates that the public prosecutor may not have applied his mind to the materials placed before him as held in Bairam Muralidhar case. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable on the very face of it and would deserve interference. The very initiation of the prosecution has been found to be untenable in law. [Paras 14, 15] [324-E-H]
P. C. Joshi and another v. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1961 SC 387 : [1961] SCR 63; Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh (2013) 15 SCC 624 : [2013] 16 SCR 542; Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221 : [2016] 3 SCR 865; Bairam Muralidhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 10 SCC 380 : [2014]
8 SCR 328 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.