E V K SAMPATH Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I desire, at the outset, to state briefly the background of facts with reference to which these revision proceedings have arisen. At the same time, I wish to be very clear that I am making no observations upon the merits of the prosecution of these revision petitioners (accused 1 and 2) since the matter is not merely sub judice, but will continue to be such till the disposal of the case by the learned Sessions Judge of Madras Division. Briefly stated, the facts are that these revision petitioners (Sri E. V. K. Sampath and Sri A. V. P. Asai Thambi) are being prosecuted in respect of an alleged offence under Section 500 I.P.C. of defamation of the Council of Ministers of the Madras Government, which prosecution has been instituted by the public Prosecutor, upon sanction specifically accorded under Section 198-B Crl. P.C. It is necessary to refer to the actual facts, for the purpose of elucidating one principle which I underlies the enactment of Section 198-B Crl. P.C.; but I am not stating the facts for any other purpose, and do comment whatever on the merits is implied. According to the terms of the complaint, accused 1, a member of Parliament, made a public speech in which ho alleged, with reference to a prosecution for the counterfeiting of hundred rupee currency notes, which is now pending trial, that an unnamed individual close to a Minister of the Madras Government, was involved, and that the said Minister was making attempts to prevent the arrest of the culprit. According to the reported speech, the speaker further stated that Ministers were attempting to suppress the offence by exercising their power; and that if the said Ministers did by means of a conspiracy, suppress the truth, it would nevertheless be exposed. Accused 2 (Revision Petitioner in Crl. R. C. No. 1243 of 1900) is the declared Printer and Publisher of the Tamil Daily "Thani Arasu", and he published this report or article in his issue dated 2-7-1960. The averment in the complaint is that, thereby, the Council of Ministers has been defamed.

(2.) While this case was pending trial before the learned Sessions Judge, in accordance with the provisions of Section 198-B Crl. P.C., the accused filed a petition into court in which several grounds were taken regarding the maintainability of the proceedings. It was claimed, inter alia, that the complaint was by a Council of Ministers, and hence not maintainable. The complaint ought to have been signed both by the party aggrieved and by the Public Prosecutor and not by the latter alone. Sub-sections (6) to (9) of Section 198-B Crl. P. C. render it clear that the victim should also join in making the complaint, before a court could take cognizance of it. A separate plea was taken, with regard to accused 1, that he was not liable, as spoken words were definitely excluded from the purview of Section 198-B (1) Crl. P.C. Accused 2 claimed that he was not liable, since he only reported the speech made by a Member of Parliament, accused 1. There was one plea in addition, with which we are now concerned, to the effect that the provisions of Section 198-B Crl. P.C. offended Article 14 of the Constitution. The learned Sessions Judge dealt with these objections in a preliminary order, and overruled them. It is in this context that the Criminal revision proceedings have been filed.

(3.) The learned Advocate General specifically declares, and I am placing it on record now, that though these objections were dismissed in limine by the learned Sessions Judge, the accused are free to agitate them as grounds against their conviction at the further stages of the trial also. The arguments advanced before me have hence been confined to one ground, which is alone presented for the adjudication of this court, that the provisions of Section 198-B Crl. P.C. are ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution, and hence that the complaint itself is liable to be quashed. Upon the other grounds, therefore, it is not necessary for me to express any opinion whatever. But I wish merely to state that, after it was held by Bavdekar J. in C. B. L. Bhatnagar v. State; and by Raman Nair J. in Sankar v. State, ILR (1959) Kerala 195 : (AIR 1959 Kerala 100) that a complaint made under Section 198-B Crl. P.C. must also satisfy the provisions of Section 198, that is, the complaint will have to be made both by the person aggrieved and the Public Prosecutor, the Supreme Court has now held in P. C. Joshi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Crl. Ap. No. 130 of 1960, not so far reported (since reported in that this view does not correctly interpret Sub-section (13) of Section 198-B, and that the complaint need not also be signed by the person or persons aggrieved. I may also merely note, without expressing any further comment, thereon, the argument of the learned Advocate General with regard to the plea that accused 2 (revision petitioner in Crl. R. C. No. 1243 of 1960) was not liable, because he merely reported the speech of a Member of Parliament, accused 1. The learned Advocate General has here pressed before me the principle expressed in "Truth" (N.Z.) Ltd. v. Philip North Holloway, 1960-1 WLR 997, in the following words, quoting Gatley on Republication and Repetition: "Every republication of a libel is a new libel, and such publisher is answerable for his act, to the same extent as if the calumny originated with him".