RAJDEEP SARDESAI&OTHER MEDIA HOUSES VS STATE OF A.P-RAJIV TRIVEDI IMPLICATION-SOHRABUDDIN ENCOUNTER CASE-APPEAL DISMISSED.
Facts in Nutshell : Rajiv Trivedi,[then]Additional Commissioner of Police (Crimes and SIT),Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh,with regard to the Sohrabuddin encounter case was published by the appellants in the respective publications and was telecast on CNN-IBN.A representation was given by the second-respondent to the Andhra Pradesh State Government seeking previous sanction under Section 199(4)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for prosecution of the appellants for offences punishable under the provisions referred to supra. Accordingly, the previous sanction was accorded by the State Government vide G.O. Rt. Nos. 6581, 6582, 6583 and 6580 dated 27.10.2007 in favour of the second respondent permitting him to file complaints against the appellants through the State Public Prosecutor before the appropriate court of law against the individuals connected with electronic and print media as hereinbelow:
a)Siyasat Urdu Daily: Sri Latif Mohammad Khanb)
b]CNN-IBN (English News Channelc)
c) Rajasthan Patrika (Jaipur) Hindi daily
d)The Deccan Chronicle English Daily
e)The Etemaad Urdu Daily
Hon'ble A.P High Court Held: The order dated 29.4.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 1638 of 2008 and batch matters whereby, the High Court dismissed all the criminal petitions except Criminal Petition No. 7592 of 2007, which were filed against the order of summoning in various complaints filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on behalf of the second respondent, as A.P H.C refused to quash the criminal proceeding ,hence ,this appeal before Apex court .
Hon'ble Supreme Court Held that : "High Court of Andhra Pradesh in rejecting the petitions for quashing the initiation of criminal proceedings against the appellants under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is perfectly legal and valid, the same does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction as there is no substantial question of law framed in the appeals nor is there any miscarriage of justice for the appellants to interfere with at this stage"
Full Text of Judgement :
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.857 OF 2012
RAJDEEP SARDESAI ………APPELLANT
Vs.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.852 OF 2012
J U D G M E N T
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.853 OF 2012 ,CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.854 OF 2012,CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.855 OF 2012,CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.856 OF 2012,CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.858 OF 2012,CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.851 OF 2012,CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.850 OF 2012.
The present group of appeals is directed against the final common judgment and order dated 29.4.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 1638 of 2008 and batch matters whereby, the High Court dismissed all the criminal petitions except Criminal Petition No. 7592 of 2007, which were filed against the order of summoning in various complaints filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh on behalf of the second respondent. The following table would be apposite to clarify which appeal is filed against which criminal petition/complaint case:-
Crl.
Appeal Nos.
before this
Court
|
Crl.
Petns. arising from
Complaint
Nos.
|
Complaint
filed for Defamation under
Section
(s)against
appellants
|
Permission
given for
Filing
complaint
Vide
Sanction
Nos.
|
857/2012
(Rajdeep
Sardesai v. State of A.P. &
ors.) 850/2012
(Sidhartha
Gautam v.State of A.P. & Ors.)
852/2012
(Swati
Vashistha &
Anr.
v. State of A.P.& Ors.)
853/2012
(V.K.
Shashikuamr v.
State
of A.P. & rs.)
855/2012
(Ahmed
Ali Shaik &
Anr.
v. State of A.P.& Ors.)
856/2012
(Hemender
Sharma &Ors. v. State of A.P.& Ors.)
|
Crl.
P. Nos.1874, 1590, 1646
&
1638 of 2008
filed
before High Court
against
CC No.1/2008 - reg.telecasting a news programme in CNN-IBN
English
News channel under the caption “20 minutes-Sohrabud din Inside Story” on 13.5.2007
at 1730 hrs.
|
199(2) Cr.PC before
the
CourtIV,Addl.Metropolitan
SessionsJudge,Nampally Imposing charges Under Sections 499, 500 and 120B of
IPC
|
G.O.
Rt. No.6581
Dated 27.10.2007
|
Crl.A.Nos.854/2012
(Gulab
Kothari &
Ors.
v. State of
A.P.
& Anr.)
and 858/2012
(Hemender
Sharma &
Ors.
v. State of
A.P.
& Ors.
|
Crl.
P. No. 264 of 2008 before High Court
against
CC No.3/2008-reg.
publication
of news item in
Rajasthan
Patrika,
Saturday
Edn dated 12.5.2007under the
Heading
“Vanjara Par
Kastha Phanda
|
199(2)
r/w Sec. 200
Cr.PC
before the Court of
II
Addl. Metropolitan
Sessions
Judge,
Nampally
,imposing
Charges
under Ss. 499, 500, 501, 502 and 120B of IPC
|
G.O.
Rt. No.6582
Dated 27.10.2007
|
Crl.A.851/2012
(Lateef
Mohammad Khan
v.
State of A.P. &
Anr.)
|
Crl.
P. No.1252 of 2008 filed
before
High Court against
CC
No.24/2007-reg. publication of news items in
Siasath
Urdu Daily, dated
8.5.2007
|
199(2)
r/w Sec.200
Cr.PC
before the court of
I
Addl. Metropolitan
Sessions
Judge,
Hyderabad
imposing
Allegations
under
Sections
499, 500,
501,
502 and 120B of IPC
|
G.O.
Rt. No.6580 and
Dated 27.10.2007
|
2. Brief facts of the case are stated
hereunder:
A news item on various dates in the year
2007, allegedly making false implication against the second respondent-Rajiv
Trivedi, Additional Commissioner of Police (Crimes and SIT), Hyderabad, Andhra
Pradesh,with regard to the Sohrabuddin encounter case
was published by the appellants in the respective publications and was telecast
on CNN-IBN. A representation was given by the
second-respondent to the Andhra Pradesh State Government seeking previous sanction
under Section 199(4)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’)
for prosecution of the appellants for offences punishable under the provisions
referred to supra. Accordingly, the previous sanction was accorded by the State
Government vide G.O. Rt. Nos. 6581, 6582, 6583 and 6580 dated 27.10.2007 in favour of the second respondent permitting
him to file complaints against the appellants through the State Public
Prosecutor before the appropriate court of law against the individuals
connected with electronic and print media as hereinbelow:
a)Siyasat Urdu Daily: Sri Latif Mohammad
Khan
b)CNN-IBN English News Channel
c)Rajasthan Patrika (Jaipur) Hindi daily
d)The Deccan Chronicle English Daily
e)The Etemaad Urdu Daily
(points (a)-(e) are hereinafter referred to
as ‘individual print and electronic media’)
3. One of the above mentioned news items
which was telecast on CNN-IBN English News channel under the caption “30
minutes- Sohrabuddin the Inside Story” on 13.5.2007 at 1730 hours, which is
subject matter of CC No. 1 of 2008, is extracted hereunder for our
examination:-
“Police sources say Vanjara and Pandian
nabbed Kousarbai in Bidar with help from S.P. Rajiv Trivedi of the Hyderabad
Special Investigation Unit……… Rajiv Trivedi provided cars with fake number
plates in which Sohrabuddin was brought to Ahmedabad and then killed in a fake encounter.”
4. Pursuant to the above said sanction
accorded by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh, the criminal proceedings
were initiated by the State Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State of Andhra
Pradesh against the appellants. The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the
State Public Prosecutor filed the complaints against the accused-appellants for
the offences referred to supra. The Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge before whom complaints were instituted by the State
Public Prosecutor, has taken the cognizance of the offences alleged against the
appellants and passed orders summoning them to appear before the Court for
further proceedings in the respective cases.
5. Aggrieved by the summoning orders passed
by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge in C.C. No. 27 of 2007, C.C. NO.
3 of 2007, and C.C. No.24 of 2007, the appellants filed Crl. P. Nos. 7592 of
2007, 264 of 2008 and 1252 of 2008 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh, seeking to quash the same, urging various legal
contentions.
6. The High Court after hearing all the above
said petitions together, adverting to the previous sanction order accorded in
favour of respondent No. 2 by the State Government under Section 199(4)(b) of
the Cr.P.C., permitting the State Public Prosecutor to initiate criminal
proceedings for the offences alleged against the appellants referred to supra
and after dealing with the contentions with regard to
the legality and validity of the said sanction orders read with the Rules and
adverting to various judgments of this Court, allowed only Criminal Petition
No. 7592 of 2007 (M.J. Akbar & Anr. v. The State of A.P.) and dismissed all
other criminal petitions holding that the news telecast in the electronic media
by CNN-IBN and other news items published in various newspapers of the appellants
per se are integrally connected with the official discharge of duties of
the second respondent and held that whether the same amounts to defamatory, libel
or scandalous statements is a matter that has to be decided on the evidence to
be adduced by the parties. The High Court further held that in the absence of
any privilege to the broadcaster on par with Section 7 of the Press and
Registration of Books Act, 1867, the appellants cannot claim to quash the
criminal proceedings initiated against them and there was no merit to quash the
said criminal proceedings against the appellants. Aggrieved by the common order
of the High Court, these appeals are filed by the appellants raising certain
substantial questions of law for consideration of this Court.
7. Learned senior counsel Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar
appearing on behalf of the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 850, 852, 853,
855, 856, 857 of 2012 has contended that the State Public Prosecutor cannot
make a complaint under Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C. against an individual in
respect of whom no sanction has been accorded by the State Government as
required under Section 199(4) of the Cr.P.C.
8. It is further contended by him on behalf
of the appellants that they have been summoned on the complaint instituted by
the State Public Prosecutor on behalf of the second respondent on the basis of
the previous sanction order accorded by the State Government under Section
199(4) of the Cr.P.C. for prosecuting the individual electronic and print media
involved in the case on hand and not for the prosecution of any named
individual in the said sanction order and therefore, there is no application of
mind on the part of the State Government while according the previous sanction
orders in favour of the second respondent to initiate criminal proceedings under
the said provisions referred to supra against the appellants herein.
9. It is further contended on behalf of the appellants
that the High Court has erred in dismissing the criminal petitions of the
appellants and not quashing the criminal proceedings against the orders of summons
passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge after taking cognizance of
the complaints filed by the public prosecutor against the appellants, which are not maintainable in law. It is contended
by him that the High Court has also not considered the relevant fact that
telecasting the story by the appellant is not in connection with discharge
of public functions of the second respondent being a public servant and this
aspect of the matter has not been dealt with by the High Court thereby, it has
rendered the findings as erroneous in law and therefore, the same are liable to
be set aside.
10. Further, it is contended by him that the
High Court has failed to take into consideration an important aspect of the
matter namely, the State Government while examining the representation
submitted by the second respondent for according previous sanction as required
under Section 199(4) of the Cr.P.C. and All India Services (Conduct) Rules of
1968, in his favour authorising the State Public Prosecutor
to initiate criminal proceedings against the appellants does not reflect
application of mind on the part of the State Government as they have failed to
find out whether or not the comments made against the second respondent by the
individual electronic and print media have got content which are defamatory,
scandalous or libellous and whether the same warrant the State Government to
permit such institution of criminal proceedings
against the appellants under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Therefore, it is contended that the above explained reasons would show lack of application
of mind on the part of the State Government to the facts presented to it and
therefore, the impugned sanction order accorded by it in favour of the second respondent
to initiate criminal proceedings against the appellants under the provisions of
Cr.P.C. referred to supra is vitiated in law and is liable to be set aside.
11. Further, it is contended by the learned
senior counsel that the High Court has also failed to take into consideration
another relevant fact that the criminal complaints instituted by respondent No.
1-State Government against the appellants, is silent about their role in
committing the alleged offence of telecasting/publishing comments and allegations
against the second respondent which are allegedly
defamatory, libellous and scandalous.
12. It is also contended on behalf of the
appellants that the High Court has failed to appreciate that to arraign the
appellants as the accused, the complainant ought to have made positive
averments against them in the complaints and attributed a specific role to each
one of them in committing the alleged offence,warranting initiation of criminal
proceedings, the same has not been done, therefore, the summoning
order issued by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge and the complaints filed
against the appellants by the State Public Prosecutor are not sustainable in
law and are liable to be quashed. The learned senior counsel in support of his
contentions has placed reliance upon the following judgments of this Court in
the cases of Gour Chandra Rout & Anr. v. The Public
Prosecutor, Cuttack[1]1, P.C. Joshi & Anr. v. The State of Uttar
Pradesh[2] 2, Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat[3] and
Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh[4.]
13. Further, the learned senior counsel
placing reliance upon Section 196(2) of Cr.P.C. contended that a specific
sanction order is required to prosecute in respect of each person to initiate
criminal proceedings under Section 120-B of I.P.C., the same has not been obtained by the
second respondent. In support of this contention he placed
reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Madan Lal v.
The State of Punjab[5].
14. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 854 and 858 of 2012,
reiterated the aforesaid legal submissions made by Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, the
learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellants
referred to supra. It is further contended by him in Criminal Appeal No. 854 of
2012 that it is evident from the notice dated 13.8.2007 that the sanction for
the prosecution was sought against the Editor, News Reporter and Printer and
Publisher of Rajasthan Patrika newspaper, however, no sanction was sought
against the Appellant Nos.1, 2 and 3 in Criminal Appeal No. 854 of 2012 who are
the Editor in Chief, Advisor and printer and publisher of the said newspaper.
After perusal of all the documents and material on record, the State Government
granted sanction only against the Editor of Rajasthan Patrika Newspaper (the
appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 858 of 2012) by its order dated
27.10.2007, after proper application of mind. The application for grant of
sanction against appellant Nos.1-3 who are the Editor in Chief, Advisor and
Printer and Publisher was specifically rejected by the State
Government, therefore, the criminal proceedings initiated against them is not
valid in law.
15. It is further contended by him that since
the respondents have not challenged the sanction accorded by the State
Government dated 27.10.2007, authorising the criminal proceedings against the
Editor and rejecting grant of sanction order against appellant
Nos.1-3 in Crl. Appeal No.854 of 2012, the same has become final, therefore,
the public prosecutor has no authority to file any criminal complaint against
the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.854 of 2012 who are the Editor-in-Chief, Advisor and Printer and
Publisher of Rajasthan Patrika. He contended that what cannot be derived
directly cannot be obtained indirectly by the process of court proceedings. He
further placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case ofJagir
Singh v. Ranbir Singh and Anr.[6], contending that in the
absence of sanction to prosecute a named person, the public prosecutor cannot
file a complaint and the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to judicially review
the sanction order and issue summons against those persons whose name do not
specifically appear as accused in the order of sanction accorded by the State Government.
It is further contended that this aspect of the matter has not at all been
considered by the High Court even though the legal submission was made in this regard
before it.
16. Both the learned counsel on behalf of the
appellants contended that there must be valid and cogent material before the
State Government for according previous sanction in favour of the
second respondent permitting him to initiate criminal proceedings against the
appellants. It is contended by them that the State Government should have
examined the facts, allegations and names of the accused
and then should have reasonably applied its mind to conclude whether or not the
reputation of the second respondent while discharging his public function as a
public servant was intended to be harmed. Only after such reasonable
application of mind by the State Government to the facts placed before it, the
sanction can be accorded by it in favour of the second
respondent to initiate criminal proceedings and only then the court of sessions
shall take cognizance of such offence in the criminal proceedings initiated
against the appellants. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by
the learned Judge of the High Court while passing the impugned Judgment.
Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is vitiated in law and liable to be set
aside.
17. It is further urged by the learned
counsel on behalf of the appellants that the High Court has erroneously held
that under the scheme of Section 199 of the Cr.P.C., the previous sanction is
required against all such persons who have allegedly committed the offence and
not necessarily against specific individuals in order to prosecute them for the
offences committed against a person in respect of his
conduct in the discharge of his public functions who at that time was a public
servant employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or State.
Therefore, it is contended on behalf of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.
858 of 2012 that the criminal proceedings initiated by the first respondent on
behalf of the second respondent should
have been confined to only against those persons named in the Government
sanction order for the offences referred to supra.
18. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, the learned counsel
for the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.854 and 858 of 2012 further contended
that several investigations were carried out pursuant to the orders passed by
this Court in the Sohrabuddin case and on 12.5.2007, a
report was submitted by Ms. Johri which finds reference in judgment of this
Court in the case of Rubabbuddin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat
and Ors.7. The fact of the investigation by the CBI in Sohrabuddin’s
case was in public domain and if that is published in the print media by the
appellant (in Crl. A. Nos. 854 & 858 of 2012), the same cannot be made the
basis of any defamation as it has referred to the judgment in theaforesaid case
which is a public record.
19. It is also further contended by him that
RajasthanPatrika is a subscriber of United News of India (UNI)which is one of
the largest News Agencies in India,providing news to several news papers in
India. The UNI published and broadcast the news item dated 12.05.2007and the
appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 858 of 2012,being the Editor of Rajasthan
Patrika got the same translated in Hindi and published it in their news paper
which is allegedly defamatory to the secondrespondent. It is further contended
by him that UnitedNews of India is the source and first broadcaster ofthe
alleged defamatory news to its subscribers including the newspaper for which the
appellant is the Editor, who acted and published in bona fide the alleged
offending news believing it to be true and correct. Therefore, in the absence
of any prosecution of UNI, the appellant cannot be prosecuted for the offence
of defamation as the same is covered under the Explanation 3 of Section 499 of
I.P.C. 20. It is further contended that freedom of expression demands that
criminal defamation in relation to publication of news items and articles may
not be invoked in all the cases but should be limited to only exceptional cases
to redress the immediate harm done to the reputation of the individuals who
have been defamed and shall not be allowed to be used as remedy to serve
the ulterior goal as the same will have a
negative and damaging effect on the freedom of expression guaranteed to the
press.
21. It is further contended by him that
Section 499 of I.P.C. defines the offence of defamation as spoken or written,
Section 501 of I.P.C. is for defamatory printing or engraving of defamatory
matter and Section 502 of I.P.C. is for sale of printed or engraved substances
containing defamatory material. Therefore, Section 499 of I.P.C. would cover
the Editor while Section 501 will cover the Publisher and Printer and Section
502 of I.P.C. covers the seller. As the offences mentioned under Sections 501
and 502 of I.P.C. are specifically distinct offences which are against the
Publisher and the Seller, therefore, the previous sanction order was granted in
favour of the second respondent against the Editor of the Newspapers and rejected against the Printer and Publisher.
Therefore, in these appeals, the appellants cannot be tried for the offences
under Section 499, 501, 502 of I.P.C. with the aid of Section 120-B of I.P.C.
as the liability of defamation is only limited to the Editor.
22. In Criminal Appeal No. 851 of 2012, Mr.
Abhimanue Shrestha, the learned counsel appearing for appellant-Mr. Lateef
Mohd. Khan, General Secretary, Civil Liberties Monitoring Committee, who has
allegedly made certain false and baseless statements against the second
respondent under the news item “Rajiv Trivedi-Hyderabad Ka Vanjara” “Fauri
Bharkhast Karne Ka Mutalika” published on 8.5.2007 in Siyasat Urdu Daily, contended that the appellant is neither the
Publisher nor the Seller of the said Urdu Daily, therefore, one would believe
that he made such statements on the basis of the information through electronic
and print media.
It is therefore, contended that in view of
the nature of the allegations against the second respondent, the appellant who
is the Secretary of the Civil Liberties Monitoring Committee made the above statements
published in Siyasat Urdu Daily to make the public aware of the same. The
alleged offences are not attracted against him as the allegations in the complaint
do not constitute any of the offences under Sections 500, 501, 502 and 120-B of
I.P.C. The learned counsel questioned the legality and validity of previous sanction accorded by the State
Government in favour of the second respondent to prosecute the appellant in the
said appeal by placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Kartar
Singh & Ors. v. The State of
Punjab8 and
R. Rajagopal & Anr. v. State of T.N. & Ors.9
23. On the other hand, Mr. P. Vishwanath
Shetty, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State has sought
to justify the sanction order authorising the Public Prosecutor to institute
criminal proceedings against the appellants herein, the same was
accorded after applying its mind to the facts stated in the representation
given by the second respondent that the statements telecast and published in
the electronic and print media by the appellants were defamatory
and affected his reputation and the same were in connection with the discharge
of his public functions as an IPS Officer. The State Government after applying
its mind was satisfied that the reputation of the second respondent was harmed
by printing and telecasting the defamatory statements by the appellants herein.Therefore, it accorded the sanction order
under Section 199(4) of Cr.P.C. in favour of the second respondent to initiate
criminal proceedings against the appellant, which provision does not speak of
mentioning the names against whom the criminal prosecution has to be instituted
by the State Public Prosecutor.
24.He has further contended that the learned
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, after applying his mind with regard to
the allegations made against the appellants took cognizance of the matter and
issued order of summons to the appellants to appear
before the sessions court with their respective counter to the criminal
proceedings initiated against them. The same was stalled by the appellants
herein by initiating proceedings before the High Court and this Court. It is contended by him that the challenge before
the High Court has been rightly rejected after dealing with each one of the
rival legal contentions urged in the Criminal Petitions filed by the
appellants, which do not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its
appellate jurisdiction, as the appellants are required to face the trial in the
proceedings initiated against them by respondent No. 1- the State Government.
25. Mr. Pappu Nageshwar Rao, the learned
counsel appearing for the second respondent, sought to justify the sanction
accorded in favour of the second respondent by drawing our attention to the
provisions of Sections 132, 188, 196, 197, 199 of Cr.P.C. He sought to
distinguish previous sanction provided under Section 194 and placed reliance
upon the judgments of various High Courts in the cases of Master Girdhari Lal, Printer & Publisher of Naya
Bharat v.
The State10, Pachhalloor Noohu v. Public Prosecutor11, Sant
Lal v. Krishan Lal12 and B. Basavalingappa and Anr.
v. V.Narasimhan13 in support of the proposition of law
that previous sanction order by the State Government can be granted under
Section 198B (3)(a)of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, by any Secretary or authorisation of the Government in favour of
a public servant to prosecute the persons who have committed offences of
defamation against him. He further placed reliance upon Section 308 proviso 2
and Section 473 of Cr.P.C., regarding the limitation for
sanction and Section 484 of Cr.P.C. regarding sanction saving clause to justify
that the sanction accorded by the State Government to prosecute the appellants
herein is perfectly legal and valid. He therefore urged that in view of the
above, the sanction accorded by the State Government in favour of second
respondent cannot be found fault with by the appellants and prayed for dismissal
of these appeals.
26. We have heard the rival legal contentions
urged on behalf of learned counsel for both the parties and answer the same by
assigning the following reasons. With regard to the contention urged by learned
senior counsel Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar on behalf of the appellants in Criminal
Appeal No.857 of 2012 and connected appeals that the High Court has not considered all the issues raised before it in
the criminal petitions filed by the appellants seeking for quashing of the
criminal proceedings initiated against them, is wholly untenable in law for the
reason that from perusal of the impugned order of the High Court, it is clear
that the sanction was accorded by the State Government under the relevant
Government order in favour of the second respondent. On examining
the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, the previous sanction is
accorded to launch necessary prosecution against the CNN-IBN channel, Siyasat
Urdu Daily: Sri Latif Mohammad Khan, Rajasthan Patrika (Jaipur) Hindi daily,
Deccan Chronicle English Daily and Etemaad Urdu Daily. By careful reading of
the provision under Section 199 of Cr.P.C., read
with the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, it provides that previous
sanction must be accorded, authorising the initiation of criminal prosecution
against the accused, however, the said provisions do not
state that it is necessary to mention the names of each one of the accused who
are alleged to have committed the offence in the same alleged transaction.
Therefore, in the case on hand, when the previous sanction was accorded by the State
Government against those who were responsible for the telecast/publication of
the news both in electronic and print media which according to the second respondent
damaged his reputation, it is not necessary for the State Government to
separately issue sanction order against each one of the appellants, when they
are all responsible for telecasting and publishing the said news item in the
electronic and print media and also when the names of the said electronic and
print media have already been mentioned in the said sanction order. Therefore,
there is no merit in the contention urged on behalf of the appellants that
their names have not been specifically mentioned in the said sanction order.
The said contention is untenable in law and
therefore, liable to be rejected. The same is accordingly rejected.
27. Further, the reliance placed by the
learned counsel on behalf of the appellants upon the judgments of this Court
referred to supra while according sanction in favour of the second respondent
to initiate the criminal proceedings against the appellants the State
Government has not applied its mind, this contention is also wholly untenable
in law as the exercise of power by the State Government under Section 199 of Cr.P.C. is in the administrative and
ministerial capacity and according of such sanction is as per the subjective
satisfaction on the part of the State Government. The learned senior counsel on
behalf of the appellants has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court
in the cases of Gour Chandra Rout & Anr. v. The Public
Prosecutor, P.C. Joshi & Anr. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and
Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (all referred to
supra). With regard to the above referred cases, the first two cases have not
dealt with the exercise of power under Section 199 of Cr.P.C., except stating
the ministerial exercise of power by the State Government while exercising its power
under Section 198B (3)(a) of Cr.P.C, 1898. In so far as the third case referred
to supra upon which the reliance placed upon by the learned senior
counsel on behalf of the appellants, the same is in relation to the previous
sanction to be accorded by the State Government for the purpose of prosecution
under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, none of the above cases on which
reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants
have any relevance to the fact situation on hand.
28. Having regard to the scheme of the
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, the complainant-second respondent during
the relevant point of time was the Police Officer in the services of the State
Government and he cannot prosecute the appellants in a court of law without
obtaining previous sanction from the State Government as contemplated under the
aforesaid provisions of Cr.P.C. Therefore, in order to
prosecute the appellants, the second
respondent made a representation to the State Government along with a petition
with regard to initiation of criminal proceedings against the appellants under
the provisions referred to supra in respect of which he has sought the sanction
of the State Government. On appreciation of the same, the State Government in exercise of
its administrative powers appreciated the facts of the matter, rightly applied
its mind and accorded the sanction under Section 199(4) of Cr.P.C. in favour of
the second respondent to initiate criminal proceedings under the provisions
referred to supra against the appellants. The said sanction was accorded by the
State Government after appreciating that the
statements telecast/published by the appellants in the electronic and print media
as well as the statement given by the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 853 of
2012 in the Urdu Daily on the basis of which the news is published by its
Editor, which are all statements defaming the second respondent while he was
discharging his public function as a public servant. Therefore, the contention on
behalf of the appellants that there was no application of mind on the part of
the State Government in according the said sanction is wholly untenable in law,
liable to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected.
29. Further, the contention urged by the
appellants counsel placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgements that the act
of the second respondent allegedly aiding the Gujarat Police Officers to
facilitate taking Sohrabuddin from Bidar to Ahmedabad, has nothing to do with
the discharge of his public functions, hence, the said statement in the news
item allegedly defaming the second respondent being telecast and published in electronic
and print media do not attract Section 199 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is
contended on behalf of the appellants that the sanction accorded by the State Government
is beyond its jurisdiction as the said act of aiding the Gujarat Police is an
independent act and it is not in relation to the discharge of public functions
of the second respondent though he, at that relevant point of time, was discharging his
public functions. This contention on
behalf of the appellants is also wholly untenable in law, for the reason that determining
the question on whether or not the second respondent while aiding the Gujarat
Police at that point of time was in the capacity of his official discharge of
his public functions or otherwise, is to be determined by regular trial after
examining the facts, circumstances and evidence on record.
30. The reliance placed upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of Rubabbuddin Sheikh (supra), contending
that the fact of the investigation by the CBI in Sohrabuddin’s case was the
subject matter before this Court at para 2 of the judgment in the case referred
to supra, therefore, by publishing the same in the newspaper by the appellants
(in Crl. A. Nos. 854 & 858 of 2012) cannot be made the basis of any
defamation as the said news item was published after referring to the aforesaid
judgment which is a public record. This contention urged on behalf of the
appellants is wholly untenable in law for the reason that at para
2 of the said judgment of this Court in the above referred case is only with
regard to the facts of that case, whereas, the allegations made against the
appellants herein are for publishing and telecasting defamatory
statements against the second respondent, which question of fact has to be
examined, considered and answered only after regular trial proceedings before
the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge. Therefore, the
above contention urged in this regard is wholly untenable and the same is
rejected.
31. Further, the learned counsel in Criminal
Appeal Nos. 854 and 858 of 2012, placed reliance upon the judgment of this
Court in the case of Urmila Devi (supra), in support of the
proposition of law that only the Editor-In-Chief is responsible for the
telecast or publication of the alleged defamatory statements against whom the
sanction order is accorded and that there is no sanction order accorded to
initiate prosecution against others. Further, the contention on behalf of the
appellants that there must be specific mention of persons in the sanction order
against whom prosecution can be launched and in the absence of the same, a
single sanction order accorded by the State Government against all the other
appellants in the connected appeals amounts to giving a wider interpretation of
the provision under Section 199(4) of Cr.P.C., which is not the object of the
aforesaid provision under the Cr.P.C. This aspect of the matter has not been
examined by the High Court; therefore, impugned order is vitiated in law and is
contrary to the provisions of Section 199(4) of the
Cr.P.C.
32. By careful reading of Section 199(4) of
the Cr.P.C., it does not indicate that in order to initiate criminal
proceedings against the accused, the public servant needs to obtain sanction from the
State Government in respect of each one of the persons against whom the same
transaction of offence is alleged and the names of the accused are required to
be mentioned specifically in the sanction order accorded by the State
Government. It is sufficient if one sanction is accorded to prosecute all the
concerned persons involved in that occurrence, thus,
the contention on behalf of the appellants in this regard is also liable to be
rejected and is accordinglyrejected.
33. The contention urged by the learned
counsel Mr.Abhimanue Shrestha on behalf of the appellants in Criminal Appeal
No.851 of 2012 is also untenable in law for the reasons stated that the
appellant has made a statement on the basis of the news items telecast/published
in electronic and print media. The same cannot be accepted by us for the reason
that it is a matter that has to be examined by the trial court after recording
the findings of fact on the basis of valid and cogent evidence to be adduced by
the State Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent.Therefore, there is no
substance in the said contention urged on behalf of the appellants and the same
is rejected.
34. The learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the second respondent rightly sought to justify the findings and reasons of
the High Court in its impugned judgment, placing reliance on Sections 132, 188,
196,197 and 199 of Cr.P.C., inter alia contending that for prosecution of an
accused in the case of defamation of a public servant, sanction can be accorded
under the old Section 198B(3b) of Cr.P.C.,1898, by any Secretary or
authorisation by the Government. He has also placed reliance upon Section 2U of
Cr.P.C. which defines a Public Prosecutor as any person appointed under Section
24 and included any person acting under the directions of a Public Prosecutor.
The learned counsel on behalf of the second respondent has rightly justified
that the sanction accorded by the State Government to prosecute the appellants
is perfectly legal and valid by placing reliance on Section 308 proviso 2,
Section 473 of Cr.P.C. regarding the limitation for sanction and Section 484 of
Cr.P.C. The learned counsel has also rightly placed reliance upon the judgments
in the cases of Master Girdhari Lal, Printer & Publisher of Naya Bharat
v. The State, Pachhalloor Noohu v. Public Prosecutor
and Sant Lal v. Krishan Lal and B. Basavalingappa
and Anr. v. Narasimhan all referred to supra. Therefore,
the submission made by him is well founded and the same must be accepted.
35. Further, the learned counsel for the
appellants by placing reliance on Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of
India contended that the initiation and continuance of the criminal proceedings
in the present cases hinder and hamper the very freedom of press which is most
precious and constitute an affront to the aforesaid provisions under the
Constitution of India. The said contention has been rightly rebutted
by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents by strongly urging that the
reputation of an individual is also equally important and that the said aspect
of the matter must be considered after adducing cogent and valid evidence on
record by the Public Prosecutor before the learned trial Judge who shall then appreciate
the same and record his findings on merits of the case.
36. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are
of the opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in rejecting the petitions for quashing the initiation of criminal
proceedings against the appellants under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is perfectly
legal and valid, the same does not call for interference by this Court in
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction as there is no substantial question of
law framed in the appeals nor is there any miscarriage of justice for the
appellants to interfere with at this stage. In our considered view, having
regard to the nature of the complaint, the respondents are required to prove
the allegations against the appellants by adducing valid and cogent evidence,
the same has to be considered by the trial court and accordingly record the
findings on the merits of the case. The appeals are devoid of merit, liable to
be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. The orders granting stay of further
proceedings before the trial court shall stand vacated.
J.[V. GOPALA GOWDA]
J.[C. NAGAPPAN]
New Delhi
May 14, 2015
1. AIR 1963 SC 1198
2 .AIR 1961 SC 387
3. (1997) 7 SCC 622
4. (2013) 15 SCC 624/ 2013 SCALE 513
5. AIR 1967 SC 1590
6 AIR 1979 SC 381
7 2010 (2 ) SCC 200
8 AIR 1956 SC 541 : 1956 SCR 476
9 (1994) 6 SCC 632
10 1969 CriLJ P&H 1318
11 1975 CriLJ Kerala 1304
12 1976 CriLJ Delhi 215
13 1974 CriLJ Karnataka 66
COURTESY : Supreme Court of India website
No comments:
Post a Comment