Section 198-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure is constitutional and does not violate the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 198-B - CONSTITUTIONALITY - FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION - DEFAMATION - PUBLIC SERVANT - COMPLAINT BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - VALIDITY - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - SANCTION OF GOVERNMENT - APPOINTMENT OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - SCOPE - JURISDICTION OF COURT OF SESSION - EXAMINATION OF AGGRIEVED PERSON AS WITNESS - COMPENSATION TO ACCUSED - DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT - GROUNDS.
Fact of the Case:

Three revision petitions were filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, rejecting the preliminary objections taken to the initiation of proceedings in C.C. Nos. 1 to 5 of 1959. The petitioners were concerned with C.C. Nos. 1, 3 of 1959 and 5 of 1958. C.C. Nos. 1/59 and 5 of 1958 out of which Cr. R. Cs. 598 and 599/59 arise were instituted against K. V. S. Padmanabharaju, the editor, printer and publisher of Navasakti, a Telugu Weekly which has a wide circulation in Andhra Pradesh especially in Hyderabad District including the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. C.C. No. 1 of 1959 relates to the publication of an alleged defamatory statement in Navasakti in the issue dated 12-10-1958 which affects Sri Balakrishna, Executive Engineer in the employment of the State of Andhra Pradesh and C.C. No. 5 of 1958 pertains to the publication of a like defamatory statement in two articles in the issue of 27-10-1957 and 9-2-1958 against B. R. Somayajulu, Chief Engineer, Electricity, Government of Andhra Pradesh. C.C. No. 3/1959 out of which Cr. R. C. No. 523 of 1959 arises is brought against K. V. Ramanayya, the author of the article under the caption of J. V. Bhagiratha Vikalpam published in the issue dated 12-10-1958 of the above mentioned weekly in which a portion under the heading "the accused in the enquiry committee" contains an alleged scurrilously del amatory attack inter alia on one Balakrishna, the Executive Engineer, Government of Andhra Pradesh in his capacity, as public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the State of Andhra Pradcsh.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that Section 198-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows for the filing of complaints by the Public Prosecutor in cases of defamation against public servants, is constitutional and does not violate the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. The court also held that the appointment of a Public Prosecutor to file such complaints is valid and that the court of session has jurisdiction to try such cases. Further, the court held that the examination of the aggrieved person as a witness is mandatory and that the court has the discretion to award compensation to the accused if the complaint is found to be false and frivolous or vexatious.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 198-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure is constitutional and does not violate the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the appointment of a Public Prosecutor to file complaints in cases of defamation against public servants is valid? 3. Whether the court of session has jurisdiction to try such cases? 4. Whether the examination of the aggrieved person as a witness is mandatory? 5. Whether the court has the discretion to award compensation to the accused if the complaint is found to be false and frivolous or vexatious?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 198-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure is constitutional and does not violate the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution because: a. It is a reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression in the interests of public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. b. It is necessary to protect the reputation of public servants and to ensure the efficient and smooth running of the administration. 2. The appointment of a Public Prosecutor to file complaints in cases of defamation against public servants is valid because: a. The Public Prosecutor is a responsible person who is duty-bound to assist the court in discovering the truth. b. The Public Prosecutor can only file a complaint after obtaining the sanction of the Government, which is a further safeguard for the accused. 3. The court of session has jurisdiction to try cases of defamation against public servants because: a. Section 198-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically confers jurisdiction on the court of session to try such cases. b. The court of session is a higher tribunal and provides greater protection for the accused. 4. The examination of the aggrieved person as a witness is mandatory because: a. It is necessary to test the bona fides of the complaint. b. It gives the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the aggrieved person and to elicit evidence in his defence. 5. The court has the discretion to award compensation to the accused if the complaint is found to be false and frivolous or vexatious because: a. It is a safeguard against malicious and reckless complaints. b. It compensates the accused for the loss of reputation and other damages suffered as a result of the complaint.
Final Decision: The revision petitions were dismissed.

( 1 ) THESE three revision petitions have come before us on reference by our learned brother, Basireddy, J. They are directed against the order, dated 18-9-1959, made by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby he rejected the preliminary objections taken to the initiation of proceedings in C. C. Nos. 1 to 5 of 1959. The petitioners herein are concerned only with C. C. Nos. 1, 3 of 1959 and 5 of 1958. They call in question the legality and the correctness of the above order so far as it affects them. C. C. Nos. 1/59 and 5 of 1958 out of which Cr. R. Cs. 598 and 599/59 arise were instituted against K. V. S. Padmanabharaju, the editor, printer and publisher of Navasakti a Telugu Weekly which has a wide circulation in Andhra Pradesh especially in Hyderabad District including the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. C. C. No. 1 of 1959 relates to the publication of an alleged defamatory statement in Navasakti in the issue dated 12-10-1958 which affects Sri Balakrishna, Executive Engineer in the employment of the State of Andhra Pradesh and C. C. No. 5 of 1958 pertains to the publication of a like defamatory statement in two articles in the issue of 27-10-1957 and 9-2-1958 against B. R. Somayajulu, Chief Engineer, Electricity, Government of Andhra Pradesh. C. C. No. 3/1959 out of which Cr. R. C. No. 523 of 1959 arises is brought against K. V. Ramanayya, the author of the article under the caption of J. V. Bhagiratha Vikalpam published in the issue dated 12-10-1958 of the above mentioned weekly in which a portion under the heading "the accused in the enquiry committee" contains an alleged scurrilously del amatory attack inter alia on one Balakrishna, the Executive Engineer, Government of Andhra Pradesh in his capacity, as public servant employed in connection with the affairs of the State of Andhra Pradcsh. It ig not necessary for the present purpose to set out in detail the alleged defamatory matter contained in the said articles. It may however be stated here that the persons defamed did not elect to file complaints themselves, though it was open for them to do so under the provisions of Section 198, Cr. P. C. Instead the Government, after being satisfied that they are false and frivolous decided to launch prosecution. Mr. N. S. Raghavan was appointed Public Prosecutor who, under the requisite previous sanction, lodged within time complaints in writing before the Sessions Judge Secunderabad. Thus the matter came before the court in accordance with the provisions of Section 198-B Cr. P. C. which was introduced by the Central Act 26 of 1955. The Sessions Judge for Secunderabad and Hyderabad did not try the cases himself. He transferred them to the Additional Judge City Civil Court Hyderabad. But eventually these cases were transferred to the Chairman of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal who was appointed Additional Sessions Judge. The accused raised several objections both as to the legality of the proceedings against them and to the constitutionality of Section 198-B Cr. P. C. The learned Judge repelled all the contentions. The accused therefore have come in revision to this court. As these petitions raise points of law on which there is conflict of opinion between some of the High Courts, the matter has been referred to this Bench.

( 2 ) THE two legal points raised by Mr. Raghuvir the learned counsel in Cr. R. C. 523/59 are : (1) that Sri N. S. Raghavan was not competent to make a complaint under Section 198-B Cr. P. C. as he was not a public prosecutor appointed generally but a special prosecutor and was not in terms clothed with authority to file complaint; and (2) that the complaints are bad even because the aggrieved persons have not joined and signed as complainants. As the first point is raised mainly on terms of order of appointment, we may extract here the said order contained in G. O. Ms. 228 dated 29-1-1959 which is to the following effect :"it has been brought to the notice of the Government that certain false

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1960 Supreme(AP) 113

Andhra Pradesh High CourtJudges : JAGMOHAN REDDY, N.KUMARAYYAK.V.Ramaniah - AppellantVersusSpecial Public Prosecutor - RespondentDecided On : 04-18-60

Section 198-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure is constitutional and does not violate the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.

Cases Referred (3)

Judicial Analysis

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : JAGMOHAN REDDY, N.KUMARAYYA
K.V.Ramaniah - Appellant
Versus
Special Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Decided On : 04-18-60