Y V SHANTHAMURTHY Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.R.Ps. Nos.85, 86 and 87 of 1972 arise from the order issuing process against the petitioners who are arrayed as the accused in CC. Nos. 102, 130 and 207 of 1972 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, First Court, Dharwar.

(2.) The first petitioner is the prmter and publisher and the second petitioner is the editor of a Weekly Newspaper called 'Janapragathi printed and published at 8th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore-3. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioners by Mr. N. H. Naik, learned Advocate for the petitioners, that the summons issued by the JMFC., First Court, Dharwar, and served on them is without the names of the complainant, the offences alleged, and also which did not accompany with a copy of the complaint as required under Rule 7 of the Mysore Criminal Rules of Practice of 1968 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Rules of Practice) is improper and illegal. His second contention is that the petitioners who are arrayed as the accused in those criminal cases are residents of Bangalore and the Weekly Newspaper Janapragathi' was printed and published in Bangalore. Therefore, the JMFC., First Court, Dharwar, has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. His third contention is that the complainants being public servants, are not entitled to file complaint under S.500 IPC. without previous permission of the Government. 2 (a). Mr. Naik during the course of argument did not press for a decision on the last two contentions as he wanted those contentions to be kept open for being urged before the Magistrate in the event of his first contention not being accepted and the proceedings before the learned Magistrate not being quashed. In view of this submission, I am not called upon to decide those questions but it is necessary to deal with the first contention to find out whether on that ground the proceedings before the Magistrate could be quashed.

(3.) In Chapter III of Criminal Rules of Practice, Rule 2 reads as under: "Every summons relating to a case shall state the place of hearing and the date and time when the presence of the persons summoned is required.." Rule 7 of the said Rules, reads as under: "In a case instituted upon a complaint, a copy of the complaint shall ba served on the accused along with the summons." It is clear from Rule 2 that the details, namely, the name of the complainant need not be mentioned in the summons. This is in conformity with the form prescribed under S.63 Cr.P.C. In Schedule V, what is required to be mentioned in the summons is to state the place of hearing, the date and time when the presence of the persons summoned is required and also shortly, the offence charged. In the three summons now produced before the Court it is clear that they are in conformity with the form and the rules prescribed in this behalf. Rule 7 requires a copy of the complaint shall be served on the accused along with the summons. This has not been complied with in this case. The question for determination is whether the non-compliance with the rule vitiates the proceedings. The answer to 'this question is that it is purely a procedural irregularity curable under S.537 Cr.P C. which lays down as under: