N VITTAL Vs. GIRREDDI SURYANARAYANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First respondent, who is working as the Deputy General Manager, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), acting as a whistle blower, sent a report against Dr. D.R.Mehta, Chairman, SEBI, alleging that Dr.Mehta had caused a financial loss of Rs.2.20 Crore to SEBI, to the petitioner when he was working as the Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) . When asked by the media reporters about the action being taken by him against Dr.Mehta, Chairman, SEBI, on the complaint given by first respondent, petitioner informed them that that complaint is being looked into, but that may not be construed as a probe, and that he (petitioner) does not suspect the integrity of an official like Dr.Mehta, whom he believed was above board, and said that there were complaints against the first respondent on various counts. That statement of the petitioner appeared in the print and visual media and Internet on 18th and 19th April, 2001. Alleging that on 14-08-2002 when he got down from the train at Rajahmundry, to go to his native place, his two friends, who are cited as witnesses in the complaint, had shown him the publications that appeared in the press and questioned him about the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against him by the petitioner, and thus his reputation among friends, relatives and public is lowered and damaged, first respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner under Section 500 I.P.C. at Rajahmundry, which was taken cognizance of as C.C.No.1344 of 2002. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in the said C.C.

(2.) The main contention of Sri P.V.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the complaint filed by the first respondent about one and a half years after publication of the alleged defamatory statement, at a remote place like Rajahmundry, on the eve of retirement of the petitioner, is vitiated by mala fides and in any event since the statement made by the petitioner, as CVC, that there are some complaints against an official, cannot be said to be a defamatory statement, and in any event since the petitioner, while making the alleged defamatory statement, was acting in his official capacity, complaint filed by the first respondent against the petitioner, without obtaining sanction from the Central Government, as contemplated by Sec. 197 Cr.P.C. is liable to be quashed and relied on State of H.P. v. M.P.Gupta in support of his said contention.

(3.) The contention of Sri C.Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for first respondent, is that since giving statement to reporters of the media is not an official act, and since the bar under Section 197 Cr.P.C. applies only to acts done in official capacity but not to offences committed by a public servant, and since making defamatory statement is not and cannot be an official act, but is a crime, there is no need for the first respondent to obtain sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Relying on State of H.P. v. M.P. Gupta and State of M.P. v. Awadh Kishore Gupta2 he contended that since question whether the statement made by the petitioner are defamatory or not can be decided only after trial, there are no grounds to quash the complaint more so because petitioner failed to respond to the notice got issued by the first respondent asking for information of the complaints allegedly received against him.