A group of persons can be defamed under Section 499 of the IPC, and the sanction of the state government is required for filing a complaint under Section 500 of the IPC for defamation of a public servant.

Judgment

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.:- Sahib Singh Mehra, appellant in this appeal by special leave, published an article in his paper Kaliyug of Aligarh, dated September 22, 1960, under the heading Ulta Chor Kotwal Ko Dante which means that a thief reprimanded the kotwal, a police officer, though the right thing would be the other way. The article contained the following expressions, as translated:

"How the justice stands at a distance as a helpless spectator of the show as to the manner in which the illicit bribe money from plaintiffs and defendants enters into the pockets of Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors and the extent to which it reaches and to which use it is put."

2. The Public Prosecutor and the II Assistant Public Prosecutors at Aligarh requested the Superintendent of Police for obtaining the sanction of the Government for filing a complaint by the District Government Counsel in the Court of the Sessions Judge under S. 500, I. P. C. The Government was duly approached through proper channel and, ultimately, the Home Secretary, U. P. Government, wrote to the Inspector General, U. P. on March 1, 1961 :

"I am directed to convey the sanction of the State Government under S. 198B(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the filing of a complaint under S. 500, Indian Penal Code in a Court of Session, against the Editor and Publisher of the Newspaper Kaliyug of District Aligarh which published a news item under the caption Ulta Chor Kotwal Ko Dante in its issue dated September 12, 1960 containing defamatory remarks against the Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri R. K. Sharma of District Aligarh and other police prosecuting staff of the Government in respect of their conduct in the discharge of public functions."

Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor of Aligarh filed the complaint in the Court of Session, praying for the summoning of the accused and for his trial according to law for the offence under S. 500, I. P. C.

3. The appellant admitted before the Sessions Judge the publication of the impugned article and stated that he never had any evil intention. He further stated that he had published the news item for the good of the public and that he had published it in most general terms to bring bad things to the notice of the Government and the authorities for the public good.

4. The Sessions Judge convicted him of the offence under S. 500, I. P. C. holding that the aforesaid statements in the article were defamatory and that the appellant was not protected by exceptions 3 and 9 to S.499, I.P.C. He sentenced the appellant to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine Rs. 200. His appeal against the conviction was dismissed by the High Court.

5. Of the points sought to be urged for the appellant, we did not allow one to be urged. It was that there was no proof that the Government had sanctioned the lodging of the complaint. This point had not been taken in the Courts below and was not even taken in the petition for special leave. What was urged in the petition for special leave was that one of the questions of law which arose in the case for consideration was whether the charge framed was the one for which sanction was granted or the requisite complaint was filed. This question is very much different from the question whether the Government did grant the sanction or whether the granting of the sanction by the Government had been duly proved in the case.

6. The other points urged are: (1) that the sanction granted was a general sanction and not with respect to the defamation of any particular Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor and that such sanction was not contemplated by law; (2) that it is not proved that the appellant had any intention to harm the reputation of any particular Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor; (3) that there was no evidence that the remarks were defamatory of any particular group; (4) that the prosecution did not lead any evidence to establish that the defamed group had any