Special defamation complaint procedure under section 198B upheld; prior sanction and Public Prosecutor complaint held sufficient.

Prior sanction for prosecution under section 198B was held valid because the sanctioning authority examined the relevant papers, the alleged article, and the draft sanction, showing application of mind to the charge. A complaint under section 198B did not require a separate complaint or signature by the person aggrieved, because the provision expressly requires only a written complaint by the Public Prosecutor with prior sanction of the competent authority. Section 198B(13) was construed as preserving the separate remedy under section 198 and not as importing its requirements into section 198B. The special complaint procedure under section 198B therefore stood as an independent mechanism and the objection to maintainability failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sanction for prosecution under section 198B was granted after due application of mind; (ii) Whether a complaint under section 198B required a separate complaint or signature by the person aggrieved in addition to the complaint by the Public Prosecutor; (iii) Whether section 198B(13) made section 198 an additional, parallel remedy or merely supplementary to section 198B.

Issue (i): Whether the sanction for prosecution under section 198B was granted after due application of mind.

Analysis: The sanctioning authority had before it the relevant papers, notings, the article complained of, and the draft sanction. The evidence showed that the papers were considered by the proper authority and the prosecution was approved after examination of the material placed before it. A sanction which is a condition precedent to jurisdiction must reflect application of mind to the facts constituting the charge, and that requirement was satisfied here.

Conclusion: The sanction was valid and effective.

Issue (ii): Whether a complaint under section 198B required a separate complaint or signature by the person aggrieved in addition to the complaint by the Public Prosecutor.

Analysis: Section 198B expressly requires a complaint in writing by the Public Prosecutor with previous sanction of the specified authority, and does not say that it must also be signed by the person aggrieved. The structure of the provision, including the examination of the person defamed and the compensation mechanism, shows that the person defamed may support the prosecution, but his separate complaint is not a jurisdictional requirement under section 198B.

Conclusion: A separate complaint or signature by the person aggrieved was not required.

Issue (iii): Whether section 198B(13) made section 198 an additional, parallel remedy or merely supplementary to section 198B.

Analysis: The words "in addition to" and "not in derogation of" were construed as preserving the remedy under section 198 for an aggrieved person and not as imposing the requirements of section 198 onto a complaint under section 198B. Reading section 198 into section 198B would nullify the non obstante clause and create an unworkable duplication of complaints and proceedings. Section 198B was held to create a special and alternative procedure for the specified class of defamation cases.

Conclusion: Section 198B was an independent special procedure and did not require compliance with section 198 as a condition to cognizance under section 198B.

Final Conclusion: The special complaint procedure under section 198B was upheld, the objection to sanction and maintainability failed, and the appeal could not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute creates a special criminal procedure requiring a complaint by a designated public prosecutor with prior sanction, the court must give effect to that procedure according to its plain terms and should not import an additional requirement of complaint by the aggrieved person unless the statute expressly provides for it.

---