TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1801
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adhya Pradesh. The complaint has been filed by the Public Prosecutor on 24th June, 2014 before the District & Sessions Judge, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) after receipt of sanction from the Competent Authority of the State Government on the very same day i.e. 24th June, 2014. 3. At the very outset, we deem it necessary to put on record that during the pendency of the present proceedings the prosecution against the Accused Appellant has been concluded by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh by judgment and order dated 17th November, 2017 in Sessions Trial No. 573 of 2014. The Accused Appellant has been found guilty of the commission of the offence punishable Under Section 500 Indian Penal Code and, accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand). We are told at the Bar that an appeal against the said order is presently pending before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the Accused Appellant is presently on bail. 4. At this stage, we would like to recapitulate our order dated 5th January, 2018 reiterating that, notwithstanding the conviction of the Accused Appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce of defamation committed against the constitutional functionaries and public servants mentioned therein. However, the offence alleged to have been committed must be in respect of acts/conduct in the discharge of public functions of the concerned functionary or public servant, as may be. The prosecution Under Section 199 (2) Code of Criminal Procedure is required to be initiated by the Public Prosecutor on receipt of a previous sanction of the Competent Authority in the State/Central Government Under Section 199 (4) of the Code. Such a complaint is required to be filed in a Court of Sessions that is alone vested with the jurisdiction to hear and try the alleged offence and even without the case being committed to the said court by a subordinate Court. Section 199(2) Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 199(4) Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, envisages a departure from the normal Rule of initiation of a complaint before a Magistrate by the affected persons alleging the offence of defamation. The said right, however, is saved even in cases of the category of persons mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 199 Code of Criminal Procedure by Sub-section (6) thereof. 8. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C 624 had taken the following view which may have some relevance to the present case. 59. The expression "official duty" would in the absence of any statutory definition, therefore, denote a duty that arises by reason of an office or position of trust or authority held by a person. It follows that in every case where the question whether the Accused was acting in discharge of his official duty or purporting to act in the discharge of such a duty arises for consideration, the court will first examine whether the Accused was holding an office and, if so, what was the nature of duties cast upon him as holder of any such office. It is only when there is a direct and reasonable nexus between the nature of the duties cast upon the public servant and the act constituting an offence that the protection Under Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure may be available and not otherwise. Just because the Accused is a public servant is not enough. A reasonable connection between his duties as a public servant and the acts complained of is what will determine whether he was acting in discharge of his official duties or purporting to do so, even if the acts were in excess of what was enjoined upo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ards the court. This Court in Bairam Muralidhar v. State of A.P. (2014) 10 SCC 380] while deliberating on Section 321 Code of Criminal Procedure has opined that the Public Prosecutor cannot act like a post office on behalf of the State Government. He is required to act in good faith, peruse the materials on record and form an independent opinion. It further observed that he cannot remain oblivious to his lawful obligations under the Code and is required to constantly remember his duty to the court as well as his duty to the collective. While filing cases Under Sections 499 and 500 Indian Penal Code, he is expected to maintain that independence and not act as a machine. 13. In the proceedings before the learned trial Court, the Public Prosecutor who had presented the complaint Under Section 199(2) Code of Criminal Procedure was cross-examined on behalf of the Accused Appellant. From the relevant extract of the cross-examination of the Public Prosecutor, which is quoted below, it is clear to us that the Public prosecutor had admitted the absence of any scrutiny by him of the materials on which the prosecution is sought to be launched. In fact, the Public Prosecutor had gone to the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provision Under Section 199(2) and 199(4) Code of Criminal Procedure has been structured as held by this Court in P.C. Joshi (supra) and Subramanian Swamy (supra). The public prosecutor in terms of the statutory scheme under the Code of Criminal Procedure plays an important role. He is supposed to be an independent person and apply his mind to the materials placed before him. As held in Bairam Muralidhar case supra) ......He cannot remain oblivious to his lawful obligations under the Code. He is required to constantly remember his duty to the court as well as his duty to the collective. In the present case, the press meet was convened by the Appellant on 21.06.2014. The government accorded sanction to the public prosecutor to file complaint Under Section 500 Indian Penal Code against the Appellant on 24.06.2014. As seen from the records, the complaint was filed by the public prosecutor against the Appellant on the very same day i.e. 24.06.2014. The haste with which the complaint was filed prima facie indicates that the public prosecutor may not have applied his mind to the materials placed before him as held in Bairam Muralidhar case (supra). We, therefore, without hesitation, t....