1994 (9) TMI 347 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence without sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
2. Applicability of the 9th Exception to Section 499 I.P.C. regarding defamation.
3. Whether the statements made in the counter-affidavit were in the discharge of official duties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to Take Cognizance Without Sanction Under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
The appellants contended that the Chief Judicial Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence in the absence of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. by the Government. The High Court observed that the question of whether sanction is required is a mixed question of law and fact, and the act constituting the offence must be directly and reasonably connected with the official duty. The High Court held that it could not collect materials to decide whether the appellants were acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties when making the alleged statements in the counter-affidavit. It was open to the parties to place all relevant materials before the Magistrate to decide whether the sanction was necessary.

In the Supreme Court, it was emphasized that the counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the accused-respondents in their defense to the allegations made in the writ petition. The Court noted that whatever imputations were made in the counter-affidavit were certainly while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duties. The Court further elaborated that the provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. require two conditions to be fulfilled: the offence must be committed by a public servant, and the public servant must be employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or a State and not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central or State Government. The Court concluded that the alleged offences were committed by the appellants while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties, thus necessitating the sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the criminal proceedings were quashed.

2. Applicability of the 9th Exception to Section 499 I.P.C. Regarding Defamation
The appellants argued that the imputations in the counter-affidavit were made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the Government and for the public good, thus falling under the 9th Exception to Section 499 I.P.C. The High Court held that the applicability of the 9th Exception could not be decided while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The burden was on the accused to prove before the Magistrate that the imputations were made in good faith for the protection of their official interests or for public good.

The Supreme Court did not delve into the applicability of the 9th Exception to Section 499 I.P.C. Instead, it focused on the requirement of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and the connection of the alleged defamatory statements with the official duties of the appellants.

3. Whether the Statements Made in the Counter-affidavit Were in the Discharge of Official Duties
The High Court observed that the sum and substance of the imputations in the counter-affidavit suggested that the respondent was corrupt and motivated by ill-will, which may not amount to acting in the discharge of official duties if there was no basis for such statements. The High Court left it open for the parties to present relevant materials before the Magistrate to decide on the necessity of sanction.

The Supreme Court, however, found that the counter-affidavit was filed as a defense to the allegations made in the writ petition, and the imputations were made while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duties. The Court emphasized that there must be a reasonable connection between the act and the discharge of official duties. It concluded that the statements in the counter-affidavit were reasonably connected with the official duties of the appellants, thus requiring sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashing the criminal proceedings on the ground that the necessary sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not obtained. The Court emphasized the importance of the connection between the alleged acts and the discharge of official duties, and the necessity of sanction to protect public servants from vexatious proceedings.