GOUR CHANDRA ROUT Vs. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, under Articles 132 and 134 of the Constitution from a decision, made by this Court in Criminal appeal No. 108 of 1960 filed by the Editor and Printer and Publisher of the 'Matrubhumi', an Oriya Daily Newspaper, against an order of conviction and sentence under section 501 Indian Penal Code, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack -Dhenkanai, on a certain charge of defamation, alleged to have been committed against the Governor of Orissa Sri Y. N. Sukthanker in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions, during the ministerial crisis in the State in May, 1958.

(2.) ONE of the main points for consideration in the Criminal appeal, was the question of maintainability of the prosecution, namely, whether or not the prosecution was maintainable as in compliance with the provisions of Section 198 -B, Code of Criminal Procedure, relating to prosecution for defamation against public servants in respect of their conduct in the discharge of public functions. On the said question of maintainability of prosecution involving interpretation of Section 198 -B, this Court found that there was the requisite authorisation by the Governor as also the previous sanction of the Home Secretary for the making of the complaint by the Public Prosecutor, and accordingly, held that there is no merit in the accused -appellants' contention that the prosecution is not maintainable as not having been in compliance with Section 198 -B (3) (a). On merits, this Court upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence this petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

(3.) MOREVER , Section 198 -B is a new section in the Criminal Procedure Code, inserted by Act XXVI of 1955, as it was felt that there should be some special provision for offences of defamation against the President, Governor or Rajpramukh of a State or a Minister or any other public servant in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions. This is prima facie a subject of intrinsic importance, which requires final pronouncement on the interpretation of the new section by the Supreme Court.