A complaint under S. 198B of the Criminal Procedure Code need not be signed by the aggrieved person, as the section only requires a complaint in writing by the Public Prosecutor.

Judgment

SHAH, J. : Appellant No. 1 is the editor and appellant No. 2 is the printer and publisher of the "New Age" - an English Weekly news sheet published in Delhi. On May 15, 1959, the Public Prosecutor, Kanpur, filed a complaint in the Court of Session, Kanpur, against the appellants charging them with having published news item in the issue of the "New Age" dated November 16,1958, knowing or having good reasons to believe the same to be false and defamatory of the Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh "in order to harm his reputation in the eyes of the public in general and among his acquaintances in particular". With this complaint was filed an order under the signature of the Home Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh sanctioning under S. 198B (3) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code the filing of a complaint by the Public Prosecutor for an offence under S. 500, Indian Penal Code against the appellants in respect of the news item published on November 16,1958, under the caption "Explosive Situation in Kanpur". The learned Sessions Judge took cognisance of the complaint. After six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution he framed a charge against the appellants for the offence of defamation in that they had published the news item under the caption "Explosive situation in Kanpur" intending to harm or knowing that they were likely to harm the reputation of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. The appellants then applied to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad praying that the order of the Court of Session framing a charge for the offence of defamation be set aside. They submitted that there was no evidence that the Home Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh had applied his mind to the facts of the case before sanctioning prosecution of the appellants; that in any event, the publication was not defamatory of the Chief Minister in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his duties as Chief Minister and that the complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor not having been signed by the Chief Minister who was the aggrieved person, the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The High Court rejected all the contentions raised by the appellants. Against the order rejecting the contentions, this appeal with special leave under Art. 136 of Constitution is preferred by the appellants.

2. We may state that the observations made by the High Court that the publication of the news item in the issue of the "New Age" dated November 16, 1958, under the caption "Explosive situation in Kanpur" was defamatory of the chief Minister in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his duties as Chief Minister were made only for the purpose of deciding the application in revision submitted to them and were not intended to record a final decision as to the defamatory character of that publication. It will be for the Trial Judge when the case is tried before him to arrive at a conclusion on the materials placed before him whether the publication is defamatory of the Chief Minister in respect of his conduct in the discharge of his public functions.

3. The plea that the sanction was accorded by the Home Secretary to the filing of the complaint without applying his mind is without substance. Siddiqi, an assistant in the Home Department to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, has deposed that he had received the papers in connection with the sanction for the prosecution of the two appellants from the Superintendent, Home Department, with "notings", that he had taken the "notings" and the relevant papers including the offending issue to the Deputy Secretary, that the Deputy Secretary had also made his note on those papers, and that thereafter he - the witness - had taken those papers to M. G. Kaul, Home Secretary, who had perused the "notings" and the note of the Deputy Secretary as also the article in question and after looking into the papers had approved the draft sanction.

4. It is not disputed that