K V RAMANIAH Vs. SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three revision petitions have come before us on reference by our learned brother, Basireddy, J. They are directed against the order, dated 18-9-1959, made by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby he rejected the preliminary objections taken to the initiation of proceedings in C. C. Nos. 1 to 5 of 1959. The petitioners herein are concerned only with C. C. Nos. 1, 3 of 1959 and 5 of 1958. They call in question the legality and the correctness of the above order so far as it affects them.C.C. Nos. 1/59 and 5 of 1958 out of which Cr. R. Cs. 598 and 599/59 arise were instituted against K. V. S. Padmanabharaju, the editor, printer and publisher of Navasakti a Telugu Weekly which has a wide circulation in Andhra Pradesh especially in Hyderabad District including the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. C. C. No. 1 of 1959 relates to the publication of an alleged defamatory statement in Navasakti in the issue dated 12-10-1958 which affects Sri Balakrishna, Executive Engineer in the employment of the State of Andhra Pradesh and C. C. No. 5 of 1958 pertains to the publication of a like defamatory statement in two articles in the issue of 27-10-1957 and 9-2-1958 against B. R. Somayajulu, Chief Engineer, Electricity, Government of Andhra Pradesh.C. C. No. 3/1959 out of which Cr. R. C. No. 523 of 1959 arises is brought against K. V. Ramanayya, the author oF the article under the caption of J. V. Bhagiratha Vikalpam published in the issue dated 12-10-1958 of the above mentioned weekly in which a portion under the heading "the accused in the enquiry committee" contains an alleged scurrilously del amatory attack inter alia on one Balakrishna, the Executive Engineer, Government of Andhra Pradesh in his capacity, as public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the State of Andhra Pradcsh.It ig not necessary for the present purpose to set out in detail the alleged defamatory matter contained in the said articles. It may however be stated here that the persons defamed did not elect to file complaints themselves, though it was open for them to do so under the provisions of Section 198, Cr. P. C. Instead the Government, after being satisfied that they are false and frivolous decided to launch prosecution. Mr. N. S. Raghavan was appointed Public Prosecutor who, under the requisite previous sanction, lodged within time complaints in writing before the Sessions Judge Secunderabad.Thus the matter came before the court in accordance with the provisions of Section 198-B Cr. P. C. which was introduced by the Central Act 26 of 1955. The Sessions Judge for Secunderabad and Hyderabad did not try the cases himself. He transferred them to the Additional Judge City Civil Court Hyderabad. But eventually these cases were transferred to the Chairman of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal who was appointed Additional Sessions Judge.The accused raised several objections both as to the legality of the proceedings against them and to the constitutionality of Section 198-B Cr. P. C. The learned Judge repelled all the contentions. The accused therefore have come in revision to this court. As these petitions raise points of law on which there is conflict of opinion between some of the High Courts, the matter has been referred to this Bench.

(2.) The two legal points raised by Mr. Raghuvir the learned counsel in Cr. R. C. 523/59 are : (1) that Sri N. S. Raghavan was not competent to make a complaint under Section 198-B Cr. P. C. as he was not a public prosecutor appointed generally but a special prosecutor and was not in terms clothed with authority to file complaint; and (2) that the complaints are bad even because the aggrieved persons have not joined and signed as complainants. As the first point is raised mainly on terms of order of appointment, we may extract here the said order contained in G. O. Ms. 228 dated 29-1-1959 which is to the following effect :

(3.) Now we turn to the second contention raised. In order to appreciate this and. a constitutional point raised which will be referred to presently, it will be necessary to refer to Sections 198, 198-B and Section 4(h) Cr. P. C. which read thns:- "198. No court shall take cognizance of an offence falling under Chapter XIX or Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or under Sections 493 to 496 (both inclusive) of the same Code, except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by such offence; Provided that, where the person so aggrieved is a woman who, according to the customs and manners of the country, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, or where such person is under the age of eighteen. years or is an idiot or lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, some other person may with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf: Provided further that where the husband aggrieved by an offence under Section 494 of the said Code is serving in any of the Armed forces of the Union under conditions which are certified by his Commanding Officer as precluding him from obtaining leave of absence to enable him to make a complaint in person, some other person authorised by the husband in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 199-B may, with the leave of the court, make a complaint on his behalf: 198-B(1): Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, when any offence falling under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (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 tor trial, upon a complaint in writing made by the Public Prosecutor. (2) Every such complaint shall set forth the facts which constitute the offence alleged, the nature of such offence and such other particulars as are reasonably sufficient to give notice to the accused of the offence alleged to have been committed by him. (3) No complaint under Sub-section (1) shall be made by the Public Prosecutor except with the previous sanction,. (a) in the case of the President or Vice-President or the Governor or Rajpramukh of a State, of any Secretary to the Government authorised by him in this behalf. (b) in the case of a Minister, of the Central Government or of a Stale Government, of the Secretary to the Council of Ministers if any, Or of any Secretary to the Government authorised in this behalf by the Government concerned; (c) in the case of any other public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State, of the Government concerned. (4) No Court of Session, shall take cognizance of an offence under Sub-section (1), unless the complaint is made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been commit ted. 5. When the Court of Session takes cognizance of an offence under Sub-section (1), then notwith standing anything contained in this Code, the Court of Session shall try the case without a jury and in trying the case, shall follow the procedure prescrib ed for the trial by Magistrates of Warrant-cases in stituted otherwise than on a police-report and the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed shall, unless the Court of Session, for reasons to be recorded, otherwise directs, be examined as a witness for the prosecution. 6. I in any case instituted under this section the Court of Session by which the case is heard discharges or acquits all or any of the accused, and is of opinion that the accusation against them or any of them was false and either frivolous or vexatious, the Court of Session may, by its order of discharge or acquittal, direct the person against whom the offence was alleged to have been committed (other than the President, Vice-President or the Governor or Rajpramukh of a State) to show cause why he should not pay compensation to such accused or to each of any of such accused, when there are more than one. 7. The Court of Session shall record and consider any cause which may be shown by the person so directed and if it is satisfied that the accusation was false and either frivolous or vexatious, it may, for reasons to be recorded, direct that compensation to such amount, not exceeding one thousand rupees, as it may determine, be paid by such person to the accused or to each or any of them. 8. All compensation awarded under Sub-section (7) may be recovered as if it were a fine. 9. No person who has been directed to pay compensation under Sub-section (7) shall, by reason of such order, be exempted from any civil or criminal liability in respect of the complaint made under this section. Provided that any amount paid to an accused person under this section shall be taken into account in awarding compensation to such person in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter. 10. The person who has been ordered under Sub-section (7) to pay compensation may appeal from the order, in so far as the order relates to the payment of the compensation, as if he had been convicted in a trial held by the Court of Session. 11. When an order for payment of compensation to an accused person is made in a case which is subject to appeal under Sub-section (10), the compensation shall not be paid to him before the period allowed for the presentation of the appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal is presented, before the appeal has been decided. 12. For the purposes of this section, the expression "Court of Session" includes the High Courts at Calcutta and Madras in the exercise of their original criminal jurisdiction. 13. The provisions of this section shall he in addition to, and not in derogafion of, those of Section 198.4(h): "Complaint" means the allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person whether known or unknown, has Committed an offence, but it does not include the report of a police officer.We are concerned mainly with Section 198-B. The language of Sub-section (1) thereof is clear and unequivocal. It says without any reservation that the complaint in writing must be made by the Public Prosecutor. It follows that it should be an act of the Public Prosecutor himself. Thus, on the clear language of the provision there is no scope for the argument that the aggrieved person must join as a complainant.The learned counsel nevertheless argues that it is implicit in the scheme of Section 198B itself that the person aggrieved must also be the complainant for otherwise, his examination as a witness under Sub-section (5) and penal sanctions as against him in compliance with Sub-section (6) to (9) would have been meaningless and further, even on general principles of law, it cannot be expected that any person can be penalised for the acts not attributable to him. It is further argued that in any event the clear language in Sub-section (13) warrants compliance with the provisions of Section 198 as well and that on that basis too the person aggrieved should also figure as complainant. We are unable to accede to this argument.