The special provision under Section 199(5) of the Cr. P. C. regarding the limitation for filing a complaint by the Public Prosecutor in cases of defamation prevails over the general provisions for extending the limitation period under Section 473, Cr. P. C.

P. RAMACHANDRA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is the Publisher and Printer of "the Current times" an English Weekly. The petitioner has published a news item on 23-9-78 making certain allegations against Sri Madan Mohan, Minister for Health. The Government gave sanction for prosecution by G. 0. Ms. No. 390 Medical and Health dated 5-6-1979. The complaint was filed before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, on 5-9-79 by the Public prosecutor. The petitioner raised the plea of limitation under section 199 (5) Cr. P. C. That was negatived by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, he having taken the view that he can exercise the jurisdiction under Section 473 to condone the delay in the interests of justice. The petitioner has questioned in this revision the correctness of the said view.

( 2 ) SECTION 199, Cr. P. C. makes a special provision regarding prosecutions for defamation. Section 199 (1) requires that the complaint should be made by the person aggrieved by the offence. If, however, the person aggrieved happens to be a Minister of a State, the Public prosecutor could file the complaint after obtaining the previous sanction of the State Government. Section 199 (5) however provides that no court of Session shall take cognizance of an offence under sub-section (2) unless the complaint is made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. Section 199 (6) has provides that the person defamed can make a complaint before a Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence upon such complaint. If the complaint had been filed by the minister himself as any other person aggrieved, the court s power under Section 473, Cr. P. C. is attracted. The question is, whether, if the complaint is filed under sub-section (2) of Section 199, Cr. P. C the Court continues to have the power to condone the delay, when Section 199 (5) Cr. P. C. provides for a special period of six months before which the complaint could be filed by the Public Prosecutor. In as much as section 199 (5) made a special provision that in all cases where the Public prosecutor made the comolaint, it shall be filed within the six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed, power under Section 473, Cr. P. C. cannot be invoked to extend the period ot limitation prescribed under Section 199 (5) Cr. P. C. Chapter XXXVI of cr. P. C dealing with limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences provides for the general period of limitation, and the circumstances in which the period can be extended in certain cases. The provisions of that Chapter cannot be invoked where the Public Prosecutor filed the complaint under Section 199 (2), Cr. P. C. Being so, the complaint is bared by limitation. In consequence, the proceedings in C C. No. 1 of 1979 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, are quashed. The revision is allowed accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document