C.M. TRIVEDI Vs. C.B.L. BHATNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question as to the interpretation to be placed on the provisions of Sub -section (13) of Section 198B of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been raised in this revision application on behalf of the Public Prosecutor for Greater Bombay, who is the petitioner in this application. The revision has come to be filed in the following circumstances:

(2.) ON March 20, 1958, the Public Prosecutor for Greater Bombay, Mr. C.M. Trivedi, filed a complaint against the opponent under Section 198B of the Code of' Criminal Procedure, alleging that the opponent had published a defamatory article in the issue of a weekly, named 'Congress' dated September 23, 1957, and thereby committed an offence of defamation against a public servant by name J.B. Contractor, who is a Selection Grade Sub -Inspector of Police. The complaint bears an endorsement of the same date to the effect that it was filed before the Registrar, City Sessions Court, Bombay. On March 31, 1958, the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay ordered the issue of a bailable warrant against the opponent in the sum of Rs. 1,000 with one surety for a like amount, the returnable date given being April 23, 1958. The opponent applied for and obtained copies of the complaint, as also of the orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, the Government sanction and the warrant of arrest, on April 5, 1958. On April 7, 1958, he gave a notice to the Public Prosecutor that he proposed to move the Sessions Court on April 23, 1958, for the dismissal of the said complaint as the Court of Session had no jurisdiction to entertain it. On April 18, 1958, he filed a statement in Court raising several grounds which, according to him, would not entitle the Court to entertain the complaint made by the Public Prosecutor. In the first instance, he contended that the Public Prosecutor had not personally appeared before the Sessions Judge and verified the complaint. It was next contended that the copy of the complaint should have been served upon him with the warrant of arrest, which was not done. He also complained that no list of prosecution witnesses was filed by the prosecution along with the complaint, as required by Section 204(1A) of the Criminal Procedure Code. But his principal grievance was that the complaint had been made by the Public Prosecutor alone and the person aggrieved by the alleged defamation, namely, J. B, Contractor, the Selection Grade Sub -Inspector of Police, had not joined him in filing the complaint, and as such the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint under the special provisions of Section 198B of the Criminal Procedure Code without commitment.

(3.) IT may be mentioned that on behalf of the opponent the points which have been decided against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge have not been argued before us, and the only point that has been agitated in this revision is whether the Additional Sessions Judge could not take cognizance of the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 198B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the aggrieved person against whom the alleged defamatory article was said to have been published had not joined in the complaint. For examining this argument which has been urged before us, it would be necessary to consider briefly the relevant provisions of Section 198B of the Code. But before I deal with the provisions of that section, I may refer to the provisions of Section 198 of the Code, which provides that no Court can take cognizance of an offence falling under Chap, XIX or Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code or under Sections 493 to 496 (both inclusive) of the same Code, except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by such offence. It is not necessary to refer to the two provisos to this section for the purpose of this revision application. Now, Section 198B(1) runs as follows: Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, when any offence falling under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (other than the offence of defamation by spoken words) is alleged to have been committed against the President, or the Vice -President, or the Governor or Rajpramukh of a State, or a Minister, or any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State, in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions, a Court of Session may take cognizance of such offence, without the accused being committed to it for trial, upon a complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor. Section 198B was inserted in the Criminal Procedure Code by the amending j Act XXVI of 1955. Sub -section (1) of Section 198B deals with the subject of prosecution for defamation against public servants in respect of their conduct in the discharge of public functions. It excludes from its ambit the offence of defamation by spoken words, but as regards other kinds of defamation it provides that when such an offence is alleged to have been committed against the President, or the Vice -President, or the Governor or Rajpramukh of a State, or a Minister, or any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State, in respect, of his conduct in the discharge of public functions, the Court of Session is empowered to take cognizance of such offence, upon a complaint in writing by the Public Prosecutor without the necessity of the accused being committed to that Court. Under Section 193(1) of the Code, except as otherwise expressly provided by the Code or by aliy other law for the time being in force, no Court of Session shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the accused has been committed to it by a Magistrate duly empowered in that behalf. Section, 198B(1) would, therefore, appear to provide an exception to Section 193 of the Code, because it enables the Court of Session to take cognizance of the offence of defamation against public servants upon a complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor without the accused being required to face committal proceedings. Under Section 198, as we have already seen, before a Court can take cognizance of an offence of defamation or other offences mentioned in that section, a complaint must be made by some person aggrieved by such offence, lint Section 198B(1) provides that the Court of Session may take cognizance of an offence of defamation other than by spoken words upon a complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor. The question for consideration in this case is whether in spite of the provisions of Section 198B(1), the Court of Session would not be competent to take cognizance of such offence upon a complaint made in writing by the Public Prosecutor alone, if the public servant aggrieved by the alleged defamation does not join in the complaint.