VENKATESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the accused Venkatesh in a complaint case under Sec. 500 IPC instituted on a complaint by the Public Prosecutor under sec. 198b Cr. P. C.

(2.) THE materia] facts briefly stated are these. THE accused Venkatesh is alleged to have published a hand note making allegation of bribe taking against Shri S. P. Mani, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Fatehpur. As the revision petition was heard without calling for the record of the case, and as neither the judgment under revision nor the revision petition mention the date of the hand-note and give its details, they could not be assertained, nor are they necessary for the purpose of disposing of the present revision. It will be sufficient to say that the Rajasthan Government having treated the allegation as constituting an offence of defamation of a public servant in the discharge of his official duties, sanctioned prosecution and authorised the Public Prosecutor to file a complaint. THE Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar took cognizance of the offence on the complaint of the Public Prosecutor but during the course of trial, the accused made an application praying that as the complaint had not been signed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate defamed, it was defective and the Additional Sessions Judge was not competent to take cognizance of the offence. THE learned Judge after referring to some conflicting decisions of some of the High Courts over-ruled the objection of the accused and dismissed his application (vide his order dated the 27th January 1960 ). THE accused has consequently filed his revision challenging the above decision.

(3.) IT will be proper at this stage to consider an argument adopted in the Mysore case (2) that sec. 198 contains no prohibition for cognisance by the court of of session. IT was observed that the word "court" having not been defined and the word "complaint" having been defined as a report of the allegation to a Magistrate the word "court" in sec. 198 should be confined to the courts of Magistrates and cannot be deemed to include the court of session, and, therefore, a prohibition under sec. 198 cannot be extended to the court of session. A further development of the argument may be that the prohibition of sec. 198 in the circumstances could no: and need not have been saved under the sub-sec. (13) of sec. 198b, and, therefore, it should be interpreted to merely preserve the remedy under sec. 198 in addition to the remedy created by sec. 198b. With respect, I feel unable to accept this argument. In the first instance, sec. 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while classifying the classes of courts mentions the court of session as one such court. Besides, the term "court of justice" as defined in sec. 20 IPC and extended to Criminal Procedure Code by sec. 4 (1) (b) clearly brings the court of session within the category of court and there is no justification for restricting the meaning of the word "court" in sec. 198. The dominant idea underlying sec. 198 is mainly the placing of restrictions on the general rights of the members of the public to present a complaint in respect of particular offences which are essentially directed against individuals, irrespective of the classes of courts where the complaint may be filed. Further it appears to me that the use of the word "magistrate" in connection with the definition of the word "complaint" deserves to be taken illustratively, at any rate, now after the introduction of sec. 198b contemplating a complaint by a public prosecutor to a court of session. To hold that there can be no complaint except to a Magistrate will be to make the provisions of sec. 198b self contradictory.