2015 Supreme(SC) 436

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.
RAJDEEP SARDESAI - APPELLANT
Vs.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.857 OF 2012 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.853 OF 2012, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.854 OF 2012, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.855 OF 2012, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.856 OF 2012, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.858 OF 2012, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.851 OF 2012, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.850 OF 2012, AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.852 OF 2012
Decided on: 14-05-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
It is not necessary to mention names of individuals in sanction order u/s 199(4) CrPC.
Sanction u/s 199(4) depends upon subjective satisfaction of the State Government.
When there are disputed questions of facts requiring determination in trial, High Court should not quash the criminal proceedings.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 199 r/w All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 – Damaging reputation of Government servant – Sanction by State Government for prosecution of accused responsible for telecasting and publishing defamatory material – Names of concerned electronic and print media mentioned in the sanction order – Sanction order not mentioning names of each and every individual – Not necessary – No infirmity. (Para 26, 32)

       (2013) 15 SCC 624: 2013 SCALE 513 – Distinguished

       (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 199(4) r/w Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 – Sanction by State Government – Dependent on subjective satisfaction of the State Government – State Government considering all materials on record and then according sanction – Cannot be blamed of non-application of mind. (Para 27, 28)

       AIR 1963 SC 1198; AIR 1961 SC 387; (1997) 7 SCC 62 – Distinguished

       AIR 1967 SC 1590; AIR 1956 SC 541 : 1956 SCR 476; (1994) 6 SCC 632 – Referred

       © Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Action of second respondent in aiding Gujarat Police to facilitate taking Sohrabuddin from Bidar to Ahmedabad – Whether independent act or in line of his duty – A question of fact requiring trial for determination – High Court rightly refused to quash summoning order. (Para 29, 30)

       (2010) 2 SCC 200 – Distinguished

       (d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Defamatory statement by appellant – Contention that the statement was based on news items telecast/published in electronic and print media – Requires determination in trial – High Court righty dismissed petition. (Para 33)

       (e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 199, 2U, 24, 308, Proviso 2, 473 and 484 – Defamation of a public servant – Sanction by State Government – Authorising public prosecutor to initiate criminal proceedings on behalf of second respondent – No infirmity. (Para 34)

       1969 CriLJ P&H 1318; 1975 CriLJ Kerala 1304; 1976 CriLJ Delhi 215; 1974 CriLJ Karnataka 66 – Cited with approval

       (f) Constitution of India – Article 19 and 21 – Freedom of Press – Contention that initiation of criminal proceedings against media will hamper freedom of press – Equally important is reputation of an individual – Matter can be adjudicated only in trial. (Para 35)

       Facts of the case:

       A news item on various dates in the year 2007, allegedly making false implication against the second respondent-Rajiv Trivedi, Additional Commissioner of Police (Crimes and SIT), Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, with regard to the Sohrabuddin encounter case was published by the appellants in the respective publications and was telecast on CNN-IBN.

       A representation was given by the second-respondent to the Andhra Pradesh State Government seeking previous sanction under Section 199(4)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecution of the appellants for offences punishable under the provisions referred to supra. Accordingly, the previous sanction was accorded by the State Government in favour of the second respondent permitting him to file complaints against the appellants through the State Public Prosecutor before the appropriate court of law against the individuals connected with electronic and print media as hereinbelow:

       a) Siyasat Urdu Daily: Sri Latif Mohammad Khan

       b) CNN-IBN English News Channel

       c) Rajasthan Patrika (Jaipur) Hindi daily

       d) The Deccan Chronicle English Daily

       e) The Etemaad Urdu Daily

       Criminal proceedings were initiated by the State Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh against the appellants.

       The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge has taken the cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellants and passed orders summoning them to appear before the Court for further proceedings in the respective cases.

       The appellants filed Crl. P. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, seeking to quash the same, urging various legal contentions.

       The High Court allowed only Criminal Petition No. 7592 of 2007 (M.J. Akbar & Anr. V. The State of A.P.) and dismissed all other criminal petitions.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment is perfectly legal and valid, the same does not call for interference.

       Result: Appeals dismissed.