S.M. KATWAL Vs. VIRBHADRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE herein is to the order dated 16.12.2005, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Una, allowing thereby Criminal Revision No. 11/2005 and setting aside the order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, in Complaint No. 373 -I -04/157 -II/2004, whereby after being satisfied that there exist sufficient grounds to proceed further against the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') under Section 500 IPC, process against him, was ordered to be issued. Petitioner, hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant', allegedly felt defamed from the speech made by the accused in a public meeting at Rohara in District Kangra on 3.12.2003. The relevant extract of the speech published in the issue of Punjab Kesari, a Hindi Daily, dated 4th December, 2003, in vernacular, reads in its English version as follows:

(2.) THE complainant, therefore, filed a complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, H.P. Learned Magistrate, after recording the preliminary evidence consisting of the own statement of the complainant as well as that of CW -2 Brijesh Kaushal, Press Reporter "Punjab Kesari", and S/Shri Navdeep Kashyap, Manohar Singh, Safi Mohammad and Dharam Singh, analyzed the same vis -a -vis the news item. After being satisfied prima -facie about the commission of the offence, under Section 500 IPC, ordered to issue process against the accused, vide order dated 11.3.2005. Learned Sessions Judge, Una, however, quashed the same and concluded that the imputations made do not relate to the complainant, there is no evidence to show that the complainant did not make any recommendation with respect to the appointments in the Govt. jobs after the accused having taken over as the Chief Minister of the State till he demitted the office on the completion of his tenure and that since the accused being the then Chief Minister has made the imputations in the discharge of his official duties to awaken the public about the evil of corruption, the protective cover of sub -section (1) of Section 197 Cr.P.C. comes into play in this case and as such learned Magistrate had no power to take cognizance of the offence except for the previous sanction of the competent authority. The impugned order has, therefore, been sought to be set aside being legally unsustainable.

(3.) ALSO that learned Sessions Judge has neither considered nor referred the case law cited at the bar and that there being no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice or any other patent error or defect in the order passed by learned trial Magistrate, the same should have not been interfered with by learned Sessions Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Also that at this stage when learned trial Magistrate has only appreciated the preliminary evidence, the impugned order could have not been the subject matter of revisional jurisdiction. The protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C. cannot be extended to the accused as the imputations he made had absolutely no nexus whatsoever with his official duties. It was never the official duty of the accused to utter derogatory and vulgar remarks against the complainant. Also that it is only the prima -facie evidence and not conclusive proof of a fact like final stage of a case is required to form an opinion to proceed further against an accused in a case of this nature.