TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Dismissed, Home Secretary's Decision Affirmed. Defamation Issue for Trial. Sessions Judge Jurisdiction Upheld.</h1> <h3>P.C. Joshi and Ors. Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh</h3> P.C. Joshi and Ors. Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh - TMI Issues Involved:1. Application of mind by the Home Secretary before granting sanction.2. Defamatory nature of the publication.3. Jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge to entertain the complaint.4. Compliance with Section 198B of the Criminal Procedure Code.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Application of Mind by the Home Secretary Before Granting Sanction:The appellants argued that the Home Secretary did not apply his mind before sanctioning the prosecution. However, evidence was presented that Siddiqi, an assistant in the Home Department, processed the papers through the proper channels, including the Deputy Secretary and the Home Secretary, M.G. Kaul. The Home Secretary reviewed the 'notings' and the article in question before approving the draft sanction. It was established that the Home Secretary had indeed applied his mind to the material facts before granting the sanction, thus fulfilling the requirement.2. Defamatory Nature of the Publication:The High Court's observations regarding whether the publication was defamatory were not final and were made solely for the purpose of deciding the revision application. The determination of the defamatory nature of the publication will be made by the Trial Judge based on the materials presented during the trial. Therefore, the question of defamation remains open for judicial determination during the trial.3. Jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge to Entertain the Complaint:The appellants contended that the complaint should have been signed by the Chief Minister, the person aggrieved, and not just by the Public Prosecutor. Section 198B of the Criminal Procedure Code, however, allows for a complaint to be made in writing by the Public Prosecutor with the previous sanction of the appropriate authority. The Court clarified that the complaint need not be signed by the person aggrieved, and the Public Prosecutor's complaint, with the requisite sanction, is sufficient for the Sessions Court to take cognizance of the case.4. Compliance with Section 198B of the Criminal Procedure Code:Section 198B provides a special procedure for defamation cases involving high dignitaries, Ministers, and public servants. The conditions necessary for its applicability include:- The defamation must not be by spoken words.- The offence must be against specified high dignitaries or public servants.- The defamation must relate to the discharge of public functions.- The complaint must be made in writing by the Public Prosecutor.- The complaint must have the previous sanction of the specified authorities.- The complaint must be filed within six months of the offence.The Court noted that Section 198B is designed to allow the State to prosecute defamatory offences against high dignitaries and public servants in the public interest. It provides an alternative remedy to Section 198, which requires the aggrieved person to file a complaint. The Court held that Section 198B does not require the complaint to be signed by the aggrieved person, and the Public Prosecutor's complaint, with the necessary sanction, is adequate. This interpretation avoids confusion and ensures that only one court is seized of the complaint.The Court rejected the appellants' argument that Section 198B(13) requires compliance with Section 198, asserting that Section 198B provides an additional, not supplementary, procedure. The Court emphasized that the Public Prosecutor's complaint is sufficient, and the involvement of the person defamed is ensured through their testimony and potential liability for compensation if the complaint is found to be false and frivolous.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision. The Court confirmed that the Home Secretary had applied his mind before granting sanction, the question of defamation would be determined during the trial, the Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, and the requirements of Section 198B were duly met.
TaxTMI 