2018 (4) TMI 1801 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court quashes conviction citing need for independent prosecution and reasonable nexus under Section 199(2) Cr.P.C. (2)

K.K. Mishra Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the prosecution, and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant. The court emphasized ... Maintainability of complaint - commission of offences Under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - offence of defamation - HELD THAT:- 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 prosecution of a public servant. There is a fair amount of similarity between the conditions precedent necessary for accord of sanction in both cases though the context may be different, indeed, the opposite. The conviction of the Accused Appellant and the sentence imposed would not have any legs to stand. The very initiation of the prosecution 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. Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of criminal prosecution under Section 199(2) of the Cr.P.C.2. Validity of the initiation of the prosecution.3. Nexus between the alleged defamatory statements and the discharge of public duties.4. Role and duty of the Public Prosecutor in filing the complaint.5. Validity of the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of Criminal Prosecution under Section 199(2) of the Cr.P.C.The High Court of Madhya Pradesh had previously dismissed the appellant's challenge to the maintainability of a criminal prosecution under Section 199(2) of the Cr.P.C. for alleged offences under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC against the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh. The complaint was filed by the Public Prosecutor after receiving sanction from the Competent Authority on the same day.2. Validity of the Initiation of the ProsecutionThe Supreme Court emphasized the necessity to examine the validity of the initiation of the prosecution against the appellant, notwithstanding his conviction. Section 199(2) Cr.P.C. provides a special procedure for prosecuting defamation against constitutional functionaries and public servants, requiring initiation by the Public Prosecutor with prior sanction from the Competent Authority. This special procedure deviates from the normal rule of filing a complaint before a Magistrate by the affected person.3. Nexus Between the Alleged Defamatory Statements and the Discharge of Public DutiesThe court scrutinized whether the statements made by the appellant during a press conference had any reasonable connection with the discharge of public duties by the Chief Minister. The statements in question included allegations about appointments and phone calls linked to the Chief Minister's relatives. The court concluded that these statements, even if defamatory, lacked a reasonable nexus with the discharge of public duties by the Chief Minister. Therefore, the remedy under Section 199(2) and 199(4) Cr.P.C. was deemed inapplicable, and the appropriate remedy would have been a complaint before a Magistrate under Section 199(6) Cr.P.C.4. Role and Duty of the Public Prosecutor in Filing the ComplaintThe Supreme Court highlighted the duty of the Public Prosecutor to independently scrutinize the materials before filing a complaint for defamation. The Public Prosecutor admitted during cross-examination that he had filed the complaint on government orders without independently examining the materials. This lack of independent scrutiny violated the principles underlying Section 199(2) and 199(4) Cr.P.C., as the Public Prosecutor must act independently and not merely as a government agent.5. Validity of the Conviction and Sentence Imposed on the AppellantGiven the flawed initiation of the prosecution, the Supreme Court found that the appellant's conviction and sentence could not stand. The court invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to quash the prosecution and set aside the conviction and sentence. The pending appeal before the High Court was also closed in terms of this order, and any bail bond was discharged.ConclusionThe Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned prosecution and proceedings, and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant. The court emphasized the necessity for the Public Prosecutor to act independently and ensure a reasonable nexus between the alleged defamatory statements and the discharge of public duties when prosecuting under Section 199(2) Cr.P.C.