GOUR CHANDRA ROUT Vs. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition to quash a criminal proceeding in Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 1 of 1958, pending in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Cuttack, against the petitioners.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1 is the Editor and petitioner No. 2 is the Printer and publisher of an Oriya daily known as "Matrubhumi". In its issue dated 31-5-1958 was published a statement said to have been made by Dr. Ram Mohan Lohia, a prominent politician of India regarding the political crisis which prevailed in rissa during that month. The following is the English translation of his statement:

(3.) Section 198 Cr. P. C. prohibits a Court from taking cognizance of the offence of defamation except upon a complaint made by the person aggrieved by such defamation. Hence, under the law as it prevailed prior to the amendment, brought about by the amending Act XXVI of 1955, a complaint by the Governor would have been necessary for initiating this case. But Section 198B prescribes a new procedure where the person defamed is the Governor of a State and the allegations against him relate to his conduct in the discharge of his official functions. For such an offence, a complaint by the Public Prosecutor may be filed before a Court of Session, But the Public Prosecutor cannot file such a complaint except with the previous sanction of any Secretary to Government "authorised by the Governor in this behalf". But Sub-section (13) says that "the provisions of this section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of those of Section 198". The construction of Sub-section (13) of Section 198-B Cr. P. C. has led to a sharp conflict of Judicial opinion. In AIR 1958 Bom 196, C.B.L. Bhatnagar v. State, Bavdekar J. took the view that both the sections should be complied with and a complaint should be filed not only by the public prosecutor but also by the aggrieved person. In a recent decision of the Mysore High Court reported in AIR 1959 Mys 65 State of Mysore v. P. K. Atre this view was dissented from by Narayan Pai J. and it was held that if the procedure prcscribed in Section 198-B Cr. P.C. is resorted to, there is no need to comply with the provisions of Section 198 and that a complaint by the Public Prosecutor alone would suffice. In a Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court reported in AIR 1959 Kerala 100, R. Shankar v. State, the two Judges who constituted the Bench (Raman Nayar and Vaidyalingam JJ.) differed on the question. Raman Nayar J. was inclined to follow the view taken by Bavdekar J. in AIR 1958 Bom 196, while Vaidyalingam J. was of the contrary view.