VIRENDRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Surinder Singh Giani, P.C.S., General Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Jullundur, in respect of whose defamation the respondent Public Prosecutor had filed a complaint under Section 198-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, has put in this application under Section 561-A of the Code praying that he may be impleaded as a party and afforded an opportunity of being heard before Criminal Revision No. 254 of 1969, filed by Shri Virendra, accused, is decided by this Court.

(2.) If in spite of the fact that the learned counsel for the State does not oppose this application at this stage, my order in this miscellaneous petition appears unnecessarily long, it is due to the fact that the accused botly connects this petition and the parties have cited before me a number of rulings none of which is of this High Court. Most of the points urged before me by the learned counsel for the accused can be more appropriately considered by the Court disposing of the revision petition and at this stage, I would confine myself to the question how far the applicant whose reputation was injured by the defamatory imputations and who was as such directly affected or concerned in the proceedings, can be made a party or be given an opportunity of being heard. This order is not intended in any manner to fetter or influence the decision of the criminal revision filed by the accused.

(3.) The facts are that in an issue of the newspaper bearing the date 10th August, 1967, edited, printed and published by Shri Virendra, accused, a news item appeared that Sarvashri Gurbax Rai Peon, Giani Surrinder Singh, applicant, General Assistant and a Stamp Vendor Harbans Lal had been remanded to Policy custody by a Magistrate in connection with a Passport scandal case on 9th August, 1967. This news item was false so far as the applicant was concerned and only his peon Gurbax Rai and the Stamp Vendor had, in fact, been arrested. A contradiction and an apology appeared in the next issue of the newspaper bearing the date 11th August, 1967 and the position taken up by the State in an application under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for permission to withdraw the prosecution of the accused was that the said contradiction and apology had not been brought to the notice of the Government when sanction for launching the prosecution under Section 198-B of the Code was given. Shri Surrinder Singh Giani, applicant, had sought and had been afforded an opportunity of being heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur before he dismissed the Government's application under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for permission to withdraw the prosecution of the accused. A revision petition has been filed by the accused against the order dated 6th January, 1969 of the Additional Sessions Judge refusing to allow a withdrawal of the complaint and Shri Giani, applicant, prays that he should be impleaded as party or at least heard by the court before the revision petition is disposed of.