MUNESHWARA NAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Muneshwara Nand Tyagi is the editor, printer and publisher of "Chingari", a Hindi weekly newspaper issued from Bijnor. At the relevant time Dr. Ram Lal was the District Medical Officer of Health at Bijnor, and had been serving in that district for a little over three years. In its issue of 7-3-1956, "Chingari" published a news-item referring to Dr. Ram Lal by name and stating that he had been transferred from the district and that with his transfer all the defects of the Health Department would disappear. The authorities took no notice of that news-item. Then, in the following issue, that of 14-3-1956, there appeared an article under the caption "Samayak Charcha; transfer and staghan". This did not refer to any public servant by name but purported to be about "a Health Officer of a district". This article was considered highly defamatory to Dr. Ram Lal, hence the District Magistrate wrote to the State Government recommending that Muneshwara Nand's prosecution for an offence under Section 500 I. P. C. be sanctioned under Section 198B "Cr. P. C. (which was inserted in the Code by Central Act No. XXVI of 1955). The required sanction was duly accorded, and consequent to it the Public Prosecutor, under the provisions of Clause (1) of Section 198B, filed a complaint in the Court of Session at Bijnor against Muneshwara Nand under Section 500 I. P. C. Dr. Ram Lal did not join in that complaint, nor did he lodge any himself. On the Public Prosecutor's complaint the Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offence. The charge that he framed quoted certain passages from the aforesaid article of the 14th March and recited that by the imputations contained therein Muneshwara Nand intended to harm, or knew or had reason to believe that they would harm, the reputation of Dr. Ram Lal. Muneshwara Nand admitted publishing the article in question but the only defence he set up was that it did not refer to Dr. Ram Lal at all but to an imaginary Health Officer and that its object was simply to criticise the policy of the State Government with regard to transfers of Government servants. After a careful consideration of the evidence produced on behalf of the parties and the arguments addressed by their counsel, the learned Judge repelled the defence plea, found Muneshwara Nand guilty of the offence punishable under Section 500, I. P, C, and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months and to a Gne of Rs. 200/-. He appealed to the High Court, and before the Hon'ble single Judge who initially heard the appeal contended that the trial and conviction were invalid inasmuch as the Public Prosecutor's com" plaint had not been joined by Dr. Ram Lal, the public servant allegedly libelled. Considering that an authoritative decision on this legal point was necessary, the Hon'ble Judge referred the case to a larger Bench. It was accordingly made over to us for hearing, and we have heard Mr. Asif Ansari for the convict appellant and Mr. J. R. Bhatt for the State at considerable length on the point raised before the Hon'ble single Judge and on other points as well.

(2.) The points raised by Mr. Ansari are four in number and are these :

(3.) Point (1): On this point Mr, Ansari's contention is that on a true construction of Sections 198B and 198 the complaint made under Clause (1) of Section 198B should comply, not only with the provisions of that section, but, by virtue of Clause (13) of Section 198B, also with the provisions of Section 198, so that in addition to a complaint by the Public Prosecutor there should be a "private" complaint by the public servant aggrieved. On the other hand, Mr. Bhatt submits that the purpose of Clause (13) is not to import into Section 198B the provisions of Section 198 but only to preserve the tight of the aggrieved public servant to, if he so chooses, directly approach the proper Court by himself making a complaint under Section 198, so that the complaint by the Public Prosecutor does not require to be joined by the victim,