HARSHADBHAI NEMCHAND SHAH Vs. RAVINDRA DAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-original complainant has approached this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order dated 16-4-1991 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadiad in Criminal Case No. 1551/1986 below application Exh. 84 submitted on behalf of accused No. 2.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a complaint being Cri. Case No. 1551/86 under Section 500 of the I. P. Code and Sections 3 and 7 of the Press Registration of Books Act, 1867, in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nadiad against respondent Nos. 1 & 2 for publishing defamatory statements in "Viharika Weekly" published from Nadiad by accused No. 1 at the instance of accused No. 2. The Court took the cognizance of the case and summons were issued on the accused for the offence under Section 500 of the I. P. Code. The plea of the accused were recorded and the complainant and his witnesses were examined. The matter was thereafter adjourned for examination of defence witnesses for number of limes. Accused, thereafter, filed pursis Exhs. 54 & 55 on 21-1-1988 saying that they do not want to examine defence witnesses. The matter was, therefore, adjourned. Thereafter on 12-12-1990, accused No. 2 gave an application Exh. 84 to the effect that the petitioner- complainant is a Government servant and therefore, sanction is required to be obtained by the petitioner to file a complaint against the accused as per the provisions of Section 199 of the Cr. P. Code and the complainant having not obtained such sanction, the complaint be dismissed and the accused be acquitted. After hearing the parties the learned Magistrate passed the order on 16-4-1991 dismissing the complaint by allowing the application Exh. 84. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 16-4-1991 passed below application Exh. 84, the present petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Mr. Amit Shah, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the Trial Court has erred in appreciating and interpreting the provisions of Section 199 of the Cr. P. Code. It is contenced by Mr. Shah that the learned Magistrate over-looked sub-Section (6) of S. 199 of Cr. P. Code while allowing application of accused No. 2 and, therefore, the Trial Court has, prinia facie, committed an error of law on the face of the record. Mr. Dave, learned Addi. P. P. appearing on behalf of the State supported the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. G. D. Bhatt and Mr. Tanvin Ansari, learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents-accused vehemently supported the judgment and order of the Trial Court. Section 199 of the Cr. P. Code reads as under: