SUBAL KUMAR DEY Vs. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions are directed against the orders passed by the learned Trial Court in the connected criminal proceedings, rejecting the applications filed by the accused persons under Section 309, Cr. P. C. praying for stay of such criminal proceedings on the ground of pendency of the Civil suits, arising out of the alleged defamatory statement published in the newspapers as well as the editorial written thereon. Since in all the revision petitions the same question of law, based on identical facts, is involved, those are taken up for hearing and disposal together, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties. .

(2.) THE learned Public Prosecutor, West tripura, filed three complaint petitions registered and numbered as C. R. Case No. 1/ 05, 2/05 and 3/05 under sub-section (2) of section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the Court of the learned Sessions judge, West Tripura at Agartala alleging' commission of offence punishable under section 500/501 of the Indian Penal Code for making false and defamatory statement and for printing arid publishing the same as well as for writing editorial, against, a, cabinet Minister, being the Minister-in charge of Finance, Government of Tripura in two local daily. published from Agartala namely, "syandajvpatrika" and "dainik sambad" on 27th,-and 28th July, 2005. In C. R. Case No. 1/2005 the petitioners in. Criminal Revision. Petition No. 50 of 2007, alongwith the pro, forma respondent, Shri ratan Lal Nath are arrayed as accused persons. In C. R. Case No. 2/2005 the petitioners in Criminal Revision Petition No. 49of 2007 are the accused. The learned Sessions judge on 18-8-2005 took cognizance in all the said complaint cases and transferred the said proceedings to the Court of the learned-Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, West tripura, Agartala for disposal, fixing 9-9-2005 for examination of the complainant. In due course of time the present revision petitioners on receipt of the process, entered appearance in the said proceedings. On or about the same time of filing of the criminal proceeding by the learned Public Prosecutor, two suits being Money Suit Nos. 17/ 2005 and 18/2005 are filed by Shri Badal choudhury, the Minister-in-Charge of Finance, against whom the alleged defamatory statement has been made and published in the newspapers, claiming damages of Rs. 3. 00 crores against the present petitioners and the other accused person as defendants, in the Court of the learned Civil judge, Senior Division, West Tripura at agartala. The present petitioners have also contested the said civil proceeding by filing written statements. In the said criminal proceedings the present petitioners, thereafter, filed applications under Section 309 of the criminal Procedure Code praying for stay further proceeding in the said criminal cases till disposal of the Money Suits, contending inter alia that the decision that may be rendered in the Civil Suits between the parties would conclusively decide the question to be gone into in the criminal proceeding and hence it is not permissible to allow both the proceedings to proceed simultaneously being based on the same subject matter, and, if the same is allowed to happen, it would cause serious, prejudice to them. The learned sessions Judge vide orders dated 14-3-2007 passed in the said criminal proceedings rejected such applications, filed by the present petitioners on the ground that the criminal proceedings having been initiated by the learned Public Prosecutor for and on behalf of the State to protect the. fame of a Minister and the Money Suit being instituted by one shri Badal Choudhury as a politician by occupation claiming damages, the complainant in the criminal proceedings and the plaintiff in the civil suits cannot said to be same, as in the criminal case the interest of the Government is involved whereas in the money Suit private interest of the plaintiff is involved. The other ground on which such applications are rejected is that there is no legal bar in institution and continuance of the criminal proceeding during the pendency of the Civil Suit. Hence the present revision petitions.

(3.) I have heard Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, the learned Senior counsel for the revision peti-tioners and Shri N. Adhikari, the learned advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents.