Defamation of a religious preceptor or the religious head of a community does not amount to defamation of his unspecified disciplines or devotees so as to bring them within the category of "some person aggrieved" making them thereby legally competent under section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set the criminal law in motion against the offender.

1. WHETHER defamation of a religious preceptor or the religious head of a community amounts to defamation of his unspecified disciplines or devotees so as to bring them within the category of "some person aggrieved" making them thereby legally competent under section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to sot the criminal law in motion against the offender, is the main question raised in these two Criminal Revision Cases being nos. 2028 of 1981 and 2029 of 1981.

2. THE petitioner is Sanat Kumar Banerjee in both the cases and he has come up before this Court in revision for Quashing the criminal proceedings pending against him under sections 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code: one before' the learned Judicial Magistrate at barrackpore in the District of 24-Parganas and the other before the learned sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Burdwan. The proceeding pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore is on the complaint of one Kalpana Sengupta, being Case No. C/844/ 80-T/181/80 and the other pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial magistrate, Burdwan is on the complaint of one Chandan Mitra, being base no. 851 of 1980.

The complainants as devotees of Sri sri Balak Brahmachari filed the petitions of complaint on the allegation that they were seriously aggrieved by an article written by the petitioner Sanat kumar Banerjee in the 15th Agrahayana, 1387 B. S. issue of 'swastika', a Bengali weekly edited by him, which is highly defamatory of their spiritual head, the said Brahmachari.

3. IN the said article while describing the Brahmachari as a self-styled incarnation of God, doubts have been expressed rather sarcastically about his really being so. It is stated that non -delivers in the alleged Godliness of the Brahmachari, a controversial figure himself, are treated by his followers by doses of stick therapy' and in that connection the case of one Nikhil chakraborty an erstwhile disciple 6f the brahmachari and founder of 'mukti Ashram has been referred. The said Nikhil chakraborty having expressed genuine doubts about the Brahmachari being an incarnation of God, the Brahmachari's disciples raided his Ashram letting lose a reign of terror.

4. INCIDENTALLY, this Nikhil Chakraborty figures as accused No. 2 in both the cases but the case against him was subsequently compounded by one of the complinants, namely, Kalpana-Sengupta.

Mr. Basu, the learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner sanat Kumar Banerjee in both the cases, -made two-fold submissions for quashing the proceedings. His first submission was that the complainants not being 'persons aggrieved' within the meaning of section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were not legally competent to proceed against his client. And secondly, Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India stood as a bar. to his client being prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

5. INSPITE of notice, the complainants opposite parties did not appear. It was only the State which appeared, though it is not easy to understand how the state could be interested in such matters.

6. ANYWAY, Mr. Ghosh, the learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the state submitted that the religious head of the complainants having been badly defamed they were undoubtedly 'persons aggrieved' within the meaning of section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also submitted that the Rule against 'double jeopardy' as incorporated in Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India had no manner of application to the facts here. Consequently, there was no reason, according to him, for quashing the criminal proceedings.

The result of the instant revisional application hinges mainly on the point whether the complainants-opposite parties are actually 'persons aggrieved' within the meaning of section 199 of the code, because the section clearly provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter 21 of the Indian Penal Code (def