9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n has been found by us to be untenable in law. Merely because the trial is over and has ended in the conviction of the Appellant and the matter is presently pending before the High Court in appeal should not come in the way of our interdicting the same. The requirements of justice would demand that we carry our conclusions to its logical end by invoking our special and extraordinary jurisdiction Under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Appeal allowed. - Criminal Appeal No. 547 of 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6064 of 2017) - - - Dated:- 13-4-2018 - Ranjan Gogoi, R. Banumathi And Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ. For the Appellant : K.T.S. Tulsi, Vivek Tankha, Sr. Advs., Vaibhav Srivastava, Kuber Boddh, Prateek Khandelwal, Aman Pandey, Siddhanth and Kabir Dixit, Advs. For the Respondent : P.S. Narasimha, ASG, Purushaindra Kaurav, Adv. Genl., Mishra Saurabh, AAG, Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Swarupama Chaturvedi, B.N. Dubey and Ankit Kumar Lal, Advs. JUDGMENT Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. By the order impugned, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has negatived the challenge made by the Appellant to the maintainabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranscript of the Press Conference, which has been placed on record, may indicate a reference to the Hon'ble Chief Minister in respect of several acts and events, for the purposes of the present case we will, necessarily, have to confine ourselves to only three statements allegedly made in the Press Conference with reference to the Hon'ble Chief Minister. This is because in the order granting sanction/permission dated 24th June, 2014 for filing of a complaint Under Section 199 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure it is only the aforesaid three statements which have been taken note of as being defamatory and, therefore, taken cognizance for purpose of grant of sanction/permission Under Section 199(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure The aforesaid three statements mentioned in the order dated 24th June, 2014 granting sanction/permission are as follows: 1. 19 amongst the Transport Inspection appointed in Madhya Pradesh are from the in-laws house Gondiya (Maharashtra) of Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan. 2. Conversation has been made with the Accused persons of the Vyapam Scam from the mobile of Sanjay Chouhan son of Phoolsingh Chouhan-Mama of the Chief Minister Sh. Shivraj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich are pari materia with the provisions of Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( new Code ). 9. The above would require the Court to consider as to whether the statements made by the Accused Appellant in the Press Conference which have been taken note of in the order dated 24th June, 2014 granting sanction/permission can legitimately be said to be attributable or connected with the discharge of public functions of the office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. In other words, whether the said statements have any reasonable nexus with the discharge of Official duties by the Hon'ble Chief Minister. 10. The problem of identification and correlation of the acts referred to in an allegedly defamatory statement and those connected with the discharge of public functions/official duties by the holder of the public office is, by no means, an easy task. The sanction contemplated Under Section 199(4) Code of Criminal Procedure though in the opposite context i.e. to prosecute an offender for offences committed against a public servant may have to be understood by reference to the sanction contemplated by Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with sanction for p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the discharge of public duties by or the office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister. Such statements may be defamatory but then in the absence of a nexus between the same and the discharge of public duties of the office, the remedy Under Section 199(2) and 199(4) Code of Criminal Procedure will not be available. It is the remedy saved by the provisions of Sub-section (6) of Section 199 Code of Criminal Procedure i.e. a complaint by the Hon'ble Chief Minister before the ordinary Court i.e. the Court of Magistrate which would be available and could have been resorted to. 12. There is yet another dimension to the case. In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221 one of the grounds on which the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 499 and 500 Indian Penal Code was sustained by this Court was the understanding that Section 199(2) and 199(4) Code of Criminal Procedure provide an inbuilt safeguard which require the Public Prosecutor to scan and be satisfied with the materials on the basis of which a complaint for defamation is to be filed by him acting as the Public Prosecutor. In this regard, an earlier decision of this Court in Bairam Muralidhar v. State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me, then, I would not have filed a complaint as a Public Prosecutor. 48. xxxxxxxxxx 49. xxxxxxxxxx 50. Before receiving the permission, I have not seen any document and did not consider whether complaint has to be filed or not. It is correct to say that I have not submitted any document in connection with this fact that Jagdish Devda was a Minister in the Government of Madhya Pradesh and Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan was positioned as Hon'ble Chief Minister of Government of Madhya Pradesh on the date of Press Conference (Voluntarily state that) the Accused himself, while addressing Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan as Chief Minister, has made all the allegations. 51. It is correct to say that before filing the complaint, I have not given any legal notice to the Accused in connection with this fact that whether objections were raised against the Hon'ble Chief Minister in Press Conference or not. 14. The testimony of the Public Prosecutor in his cross-examination effectively demonstrates that the wholesome requirement spelt out by Section 199(2) and 199(4) Code of Criminal Procedure, as expounded by this Court in Subramanian Swamy (supra), has not been complied with in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
