The main legal point established is that official communications by a public servant may be protected under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the requirement of publication is essential for a charge of defamation.

Heard Mr. Sundaram, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Wachasundar, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. ADMIT.

3. Heard finally by consent.

4. The applicant is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 506 (II) of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Case No.4842 of 1999 pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola. The applicant is a public servant and was working as Enforcement Officer in Sub-Regional Provident Fund Office, Akola. The complainant Mr. Deshpande was frequently visiting the said office and was appearing before the Enquiry Officers on behalf of employers. It is how the applicant and the respondent / complainant knew each other very well. The grievance of the respondent is that he felt defamed by three communications addressed to him by the applicant. First communication was dated 4th June, 1998. The subject matter of the said communication is "Irregularities in the submission of the reply On behalf of M/s. Khandelwal Jewellers, Akola". Second communication was dated 5th January, 1999. Subject matter of the said communication was "Show cause notice before filing complaint u/s. 110 of Cr.P.C.". Third communication was dated 11th February, 1999. Certain defamatory statements had allegedly been made by the applicant against the respondent. On the basis of the contents of these three letters the learned Magistrate, after recording statement of the respondent on oath, issued process against the applicant to appear in the Court for answering the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 500 and 506(II) of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The applicant moved the learned Magistrate for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that he was protected by provisions of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was contended by the applicant before the learned Magistrate that since prior sanction of the competent authority was not obtained under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the complaint was not maintainable. The applicant prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The learned Magistrate, it appears, did not decide the said application and it remained pending for quite a long time. The applicant, therefore, moved this Court for quashing the proceedings pending before the Magistrate. This Court, while disposing of the petition of the applicant directed the Magistrate to dispose of the pending application.

6. The learned Magistrate refused to grant any relief to the applicant. He was of the view that the applicant cannot claim protection of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant, therefore, moved this Court again under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court directed the applicant to approach the Sessions Court for appropriate relief. The applicant, accordingly, moved the Sessions Court under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also refused to grant any relief to the applicant. It is how the applicant is before this Court again by way of filing application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

7. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the first place there is no defamatory material in any of the communications. Secondly, there is no publication of the communication and therefore, it did not amount to defamation. Thirdly, the communication was sent by the applicant to the respondent in discharge of his official duties as Enforcement Officer working in the Sub-Regional Provident Fund Office. He, therefore, could not have been prosecuted without sanction of the competent authority. It is submitted by Mr. Sundarem that the learned trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence, without sanction from the competent authority.

8. I have gone through all the three communications. As far as the contents of the communications are concerned, the first communication has used following offending words :

(i) "irregu